Back
2009 Supreme(Del) 243
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Honble Judge: Mool Chand Garg, J.
Yogesh Gupta – Appellants
Vs.
The Secretary (Home), NCT of Delhi and Ors. – Respondent
W.P.(Crl.) 71/2007
Decided On: 25.02.2009
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Kunwar C.M. Khan, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: Mukta Gupta, APP and Insp. Raj Kumar
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 154 - FIR - There is no bar for registration of a second FIR in respect of an offence where in the first FIR certain important facts have not been brought to the light of the prosecution - State has a larger obligation i.e. to maintain law and order, public order and preservation of peace and harmony in the society - A victim of a crime, thus, is equally entitled to a fair investigation.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 154 - FIR - In compliance with the mandate of Section 154(1) of the Code, the concerned police officer cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information, laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible - Police officer should not refuse to record a~ information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence and to register a case thereon on the ground that he is not satisfied with the reasonableness or credibility of the information.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 154 - FIR - Constitution of India - Article 226 - No directions can be issued in the writ petition to the Police authorities to register an FIR as prayed for by the petitioner - The petitioner is entitled to exercise all his rights either by filing a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C or by filing a protest petition or even an appeal against acquittal can do so if he is not satisfied with the report of the Police authorities qua his complaint.
Mool Chand Garg, J.
1. This petition raises a substantial question of law as to whether:
i) The police can refuse to register an FIR on a complaint made by the complainant disclosing a cognizable offence under Section 154 Cr.P.C.
ii) What remedies are available with the complainant on refusal to register an FIR.
iii) What are the remedies available to the complainant who is aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused persons on the basis of a trial, which proceeds on an FIR which was registered against persons other than Sh. Anil Gupta.
iv) Is it necessary to direct registration of a second FIR in the facts of this case despite availability of a remedy under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the filing of present petition are:
i) In an unfortunate incident held on 13.02.2004 at 09:30 pm., One Surender Gupta was assaulted and grievous injuries were caused on his person and because of the same he succumbed to the injuries.
ii) In respect of the aforesaid incident an FIR bearing No. 113/2007 was registered under Section 302 IPC on a complaint filed by respondent No. 1, Sh. Brij Mohan Gupta.
iii) The said FIR was investigated and Brij Mohan Gupta and Ors. were arrested and were sent for trial before a Sessions Court after committal of the case by the Metropolitan Magistrate concerned.
iv) The trial resulted in acquittal of the accused persons who were sent for trial vide judgment dated 16.12.2005, on account of the witnesses turning hostile including Sh. Anil Gupta who was the author of FIR No. 113/2007.
v) After the judgment of acquittal, the petitioner and his family members claims to have examined the case file of the trial Court and found that the photographs taken by the crime team on 14.02.2004 depicts that in fact the incident of murder of Sh. Surender Gupta took place in the house of Sh. Anil Gupta and on further inquiries they also came to know that Sh. Anil Gupta is the main culprit. On that basis, the petitioner as well as the sisters of the deceased filed a complaint with the police and other authorities on 17.04.2006 and 10.04.2006 alleging that, in fact, it was respondent No. 1, Sh. Anil Gupta who was the real culprit and, therefore, a 2nd FIR be registered against him for murder of Sh. Surender Gupta under Section 302 IPC and to take further proceedings accordingly. However, no FIR has been registered though the complainants have been investigated by the officers of Delhi Police seven times but they have not found a case for registration of a second FIR, except by one of them.
vi) The petitioner also filed an application before the learned MM under Section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. for registration of a case against Sh. Anil Gupta. However, the said application was dismissed by the learned MM on 11.01.2007 without recording any evidence, as no evidence has been led.
3. In these circumstances, the petitioner has now filed the present writ petition seeking direction against respondent No. 2 to register an FIR against Sh. Anil Gupta. In support of his case the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:
1. Ramesh Kumari v. State (Delhi) and Ors. : (2006) 2 SCC 677.
2. Lallan Chaudhary and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. (2006) 4 Crimes 164
3. Kari Chaudhary v. Mst. Sita Devi and Ors. (2002) 1 JCC 151
4. Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab and Ors.
5. Priya Gupta v. State (Delhi) (2007) 2 JCC 1330
6. Sonu and Ors. v. Govt. of NCT 144 (2007) DLT 628.
4. The writ petition has been contested by the State. It is submitted by them that no such direction can be issued in this matter for the reasons, that no second FIR can be registered in respect of the murder of Late Sh. Surender Gupta since an FIR had already been registered in respect of his murder vide FIR No. 113/2007 which was investigated and a charge sheet was also filed against the offenders after completing the investigation. The accused persons so booked were sent for trial before the c
