The court held that registration of FIR is mandatory when allegations disclose cognizable offences, and any discretion to omit such registration is legally impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – original appellant State under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and Section 175(3) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) against the impugned order passed by the learned 10th Additional District Judge, Surat (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Sessions Court’) in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5559 of 2024 dated 13.12.2024, whereby, the learned Trial Court has rejected the application under Section 175(3) of the BNSS filed by the appellant.

1.1 The original appellant is hereinafter referred to as “the appellant” as she stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1. The appellant is co-owner of Block No. 220, old tenure land admeasuring 16,086 sq. meters situated at Village Siwan, Taluka Olpad, District Surat, holding an undivided share of about 3,567 sq. meters. In the month of August, 2023, Bharat Kataria, a land broker, induced the appellant to sell her undivided share by representing that he would secure a purchaser offering a fair price, namely one Raju Patil. In the month of September 2023, Bharat Kataria and Raju Patil visited the appellant’s residence and to purchase her undivided share for a total consideration of Rs.78,51,000/-. It was agreed that part consideration would be paid by cheque and the balance in cash. Pursuant thereto, the appellant was called on 13.10.2023 to the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Olpad, where she met Bharat Kataria, Raju Patil, and Kalpesh Dhirubhai Ahir and she was informed that since Raju Patil was not an agriculturist, the sale deed would be executed in favour of Kalpesh Ahir, who was his partner. On the said date, the appellant executed documents at the Sub-Registrar’s office and was handed over one cheque of Rs.8,10,000/-. The accused promised that the balance sum of Rs.70,41,000/- would be arranged and paid within a short time. However, the said balance was never paid despite repeated demands. When the appellant approached Kalpesh Ahir demanding payment, he not only avoided payment but also abused her in caste-related derogatory terms and threatened her with dire consequences. The appellant gave an application to the Police Inspector, Olpad Police Station on 11.01.2024 alleging that she had been cheated and the application was received by the Olpad Police Station on 11.01.2024 and the applicant gave copy of the application to the Superintendent of Police, Surat (Rural), Surat, but the FIR was not registered. While collecting records, the appellant discovered forged documents i.e. an application and affidavit for conversion of land from “dry” to “irrigated land” purportedly bearing her signatures and thumb impression. The said affidavit was notarized and subsequently used by Kalpesh Ahir for obtaining permissions from the competent authority and for mutation in revenue records. The appellant asserts that she never executed such documents and the same are forged with a view to misappropriate her property. Hence, on 22.06.2024, the appellant once again gave a detailed application alleging offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the IPC and under Sections 1.1(5)(9)(10) and 2(5) of the Atrocities Act. The application was received by the Olpad Police Station and a copy of the same was also addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Surat (Rural), Surat, which was received by the Police Control Room, Office of the Superinten