Back
High Court Of Delhi
SATISH KUMAR GOEL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
Civil Writ 645 of 1998
Decided On : 02/04/2000
Held: Thus, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case, if the information to an officer incharge of a Police Station discloses commission of a cognizable offence, such an officer is required to register an FIR in case the officer incharge of a Police Station fails to register an FIR, a statutory duty, under Section 154(3) of the Code, is cast on the concerned Superintendent of Police to either investigate the case himself or direct investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him provided on receiving the substance of such information in writing from the person aggrieved he is satisfied that such an information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. It appears that neither the officer in-charge of the concerned police station, nor the DCP concerned have carried out their statutory obligations under Section 154 of the Code. They have also failed to appreciate that the summary of allegations issued to HC Suresh Kumar, SI Mehar Singh, Inspectors Arun Sapra and Manu Sharma also contains the allegations of extortion.
Further held: Thus, the legal position appears to be that where allegations made in the complaint lodged before the police clearly and specifically disclose commission of a cognizable offence, the officer in-charge of the concerned Police Station is duty bound to register an FIR. However, where the information recorded in the complaint is uncertain, indistinct and not clearly expressed which creates a doubt as to whether the information laid before the incharge of the Police Station discloses commission of a cognizable offence there from, some enquiry should proceed before the registration of an FIR.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police should look into the complaint of the petitioner in the light of the observations made hereinabove and proceed according to law. We order accordingly. The outcome of the determination in consonance with the provisions of Section 154(3) of the Code shall be communicated by the Deputy Commissioner of Police to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Result: Petition allowed.
( 1 ) THIS is a writ petition whereby the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to register an FIR in terms of the report/complaint made by the petitioner and for direction to respondents to pay a suitable compensation to the petitioner for the agony, harassment and torture suffered by him at the hands of the respondents.
( 2 ) THE petitioner claims that Head Constable Suresh Chand of Police Station Maya Puri came to his shop located at Maya Puri Phase-II, Delhi and demanded a monthly payment of Rs. 500. 00 from him which the other shopkeepers of the area were regularly paying to the police. On the refusal of the petitioner to pay the amount, the Head Constable threatened him of dire consequences. Again on May 12, 1998 at about 7 p. m. Head Constable Suresh accompanied with three other Constables of Police Station Maya Puri visited his shop and forcibly took away his younger brother Shri Pramod Goel and his servant to Police Station Maya Puri for ulterior motive of extorting money. Thereupon Pramod Goel called up one of his friend Balraj, a Constable in the Delhi Police on telephone. Pursuant to the call Balraj came to thepolice Station and enquired from SHO A. K. Sapra and Addl. SHO Manu Sharma, the reason for bringing Pramod to the Police Station. It is claimed that he was told that Pramod was brought to the Police Station in order ot compel Satish to come to the Police Station. He was allegedly told that Pramod will be released after the petitioner comes to the Police Station. Thereafter at the instance of Balraj, who spoke to the petitioner on telephone, he came to the Police Station alongwith his friend Bajrang. The petitioner was taken to the SHO by the Head Constable. It is alleged that the SHO became furious and started calling names to the petitioner and directed one of the Constables to handcuff him. The SHO also took out a country made pistol from the drawer of his table and asked the Constable to register a case against the petitioner for keeping a country made pistol. A demand of Rs. 50,000. 00 was made by the SHO for releasing the petitioner. It is further alleged that the petitioner, while in handcuffs, was made to sit for two hours on the floor of the police station. He was man-handled and abusive language was used against him. Ultimately the petitioner was released on payment of Rs. 15000. 00 to SHO A. K. Sapra who in turn handed over the same to Addl. SHO Manu Sharma.
( 3 ) THE petitioner reported the matter to the Addl. Commissioner of Police Shri S. K. Jain on the morning of May 13, 1998 by means of a complaint. On May 19, 1998 Head Constable Suresh again visited the shop of the petitioner and threatened him of dire consequences if he failed to withdraw the complaint. He also threatened him at the instance of SHO A. K. Sapra that in case the complaint is not withdrawn, he shall be involved in false cases in the State of Haryana and Punjab. The petitioner thereafter sent a representation to the Lt. Governor of Delhi regarding the incident of May 12, 1998 and the threats extended to him by the SHO etc. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the passage of time, FIR has not been registered by the police.
( 4 ) IN the reply-affidavit affirmed by Shri K. D. Singh, Officiating Deputy Commissioner of Police, Vigilance, on September 1, 1998, it is stated that on receipt of the complaint from the petitioner the same was forwarded on May 19, 1998 to Inspector Jai Kishan for enquiry, which enquiry was ultimately concluded by Inspector S. P. Kaushik. It is also asserted that during enquiry the allegations of demand of Rs. 50,000. 00 and acceptance of Rs. 15,000. 00 were not substantiated. It is also averred that the allegations made against the Additional S. H. O. and HC Suresh Chand seem to be motivated and were not substantiated in the enquiry. It is, however, admitted that the enquiry officer did not rule out the possibility of the petitioner being handcuffed and abused. In the furth
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
