Mandatory registration of FIR for cognizable offences, abuse of process of law, and the practice of 'Zero FIR' as per Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and Lalita Kumari case.

JUDGMENT :

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby directing the respondent no 2 to 4 to close the enquiry initiated vide notices dated 23.08.2019 and 26.08.2019 on complaint dated 26.07.2019 made by respondent no.7 pending before respondent no.3 and 4 i.e. P.S. Kapashera, New Delhi.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.7/Babita Sharma filed a complaint dated 10.04.2017 bearing D.D No. 65B (hereinafter referred to as 'The First Complaint') against the petitioner alleging forgery before the respondent no.5/S.H.O. P.S. Najafgarh in regard to one plot bearing no. A-108/1, Ragbir Enclave, Virendra Market, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043, measuring 100 Sq.Yrds. and on the said complaint, detailed enquiry was conducted by the respondent no.5/S.H.O. P.S. Najafgarh, during which the petitioner was thoroughly enquired and after the said enquiry, the above mentioned complaint was finally closed by the respondent no.5/S.H.O. P.S. Najafgarh vide enquiry report dated 26.03.2018 submitted by concerned I.O. of respondent no. 5/S.H.O. P.S. Najafgarh. The conclusion of the first complaint was never challenged by the Respondent No. 7/Babita Sharma before any court of law or any higher authority till date.

3. Further case of the petitioner is that again Respondent No.7/Babita Sharma for the second time filed an exactly same complaint dated 04.08.2018 bearing DD No. 41B (Hereinafter referred to as 'The Second Complaint') alleging the same facts (as alleged in the first complaint) before respondent no.6/S.H.O. P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar, Najafgarh against the petitioner with regard to the same plot. On receipt of the second complaint, the petitioner was duly called for enquiry by the concerned I.O. of respondent no.6/S.H.O. P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar, Najafgarh, wherein the petitioner explained/informed the I.O. concerned about the closure of the similar complaint(first complaint) on the same set of facts filed by respondent no.7/Babita Sharma before P.S. Najafgarh i.e. respondent no.5 on 26.03.2018. The petitioner, thereafter, was never called for any further enquiry by the concerned I.O of the respondent no.6/S.H.O. P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar, till date.

4. Again third time, Respondent No.7/Babita Sharma for the third time, filed an exactly same complaint dated 03.06.2019 bearing DD No. 36B (Hereinafter referred to as 'The Third Complaint') alleging the same facts (as alleged in the first complaint and the second complaint) before respondent no.5/S.H.O. P.S. Najafgarh, against the petitioner in regard to the same plot. The petitioner was again called for the third time, for enquiry by the concerned I.O. of respondent no.5/S.H.O. P.S. Najafgarh, during which the petitioner again explained/informed the I.O. concerned about the closure of the similar two complaints mentioned above. The petitioner, thereafter, was never called for any further enquiry by the I.O. concerned of respondent no.5/S.H.O. P.S. Najafgarh till date.

5. Again Respondent No.7/Babita Sharma for the fourth time filed an exactly same complaint dated 26.07.2019 (Hereinafter referred to as The Fourth Complaint') alleging the same facts in the above three complaints.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent no.4/I.O. S.I. Manish Kumar P.S. Kapashera, vide impugned complaint issued notice of inquiry dated 23.08.2019 and 26.08.2019 and called the petitioner for joining enquiry on the fourth complaint of the respondent no.7/Babita Sharma. The petitioner duly explained to the respondent no.4/IO SI Manish Kumar, PS Kapashera, that similar complaints on exactly same set of facts (i.e. as alleged in first complaint, second complaint and third complaint) were filed by respondent no.7/Babita Sharma and informed him about the fate and stage of the said complaints, but the respondent no.4/IO Manish Kumar, P.S. Kapashera, malafidely did not pay any heed to the information given by the petitioner and in turn, threatened the petitioner in most inhuman way to