Back
1998 Supreme(P&H) 1053
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
K.S. Kumaran, J.
Sarwan Ram - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondents
Criminal Misc. No. 15017-M of 1996.
Decided On : 21 August, 1998
For the Petitioner:Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. K.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate.
The police have a mandatory duty to register an FIR when a cognizable offense is alleged, and the registration of another FIR that is subsequently stayed or found to be ineffective does not negate the need for a fresh FIR to be registered for the same offense.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 154 - FIR REGISTRATION - MANDATORY - COGNIZABLE OFFENCE - KIDNAPPING/ABDUCTION - POLICE INACTION - COURT DIRECTED REGISTRATION OF FIR.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner approached the court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the official respondents to register an FIR against the private respondents for kidnapping/abducting his son Bhajan Pal, daughter-in-law Manjit, and their children Jyoti, Seema, and Sunil.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations in the complaint clearly showed the commission of a cognizable offense, and the police's inaction in registering an FIR was illegal and violative of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Issues: 1. Whether the police were obligated to register an FIR based on the petitioner's complaint alleging kidnapping/abduction? 2. Whether the registration of another FIR (FIR No. 40 dated 17.2.1996) covering the alleged kidnapping/abduction rendered the registration of a fresh FIR unnecessary?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the police are bound to register an FIR when a cognizable offense is alleged, as per Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The court found that FIR No. 40 dated 17.2.1996, which included the alleged kidnapping/abduction, was stayed by the court, and the Deputy Superintendent of Police had stated that the allegation of kidnapping was investigated and found to be false, leading to the deletion of Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code from the FIR. Therefore, the court held that there was no effective FIR covering the alleged kidnapping/abduction, and a fresh FIR was necessary.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the official respondents to register an FIR based on the petitioner's complaint and proceed further in accordance with the law.
K.S. Kumaran, J. - Petitioner-Sarwan Ram has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for directing the official respondents 1 to 4 i.e. (1) State of Punjab, (2) Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, (3) The Station House Officer, Mahilpur, and (4) Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur to register the FIR against the private-respondents 5 to 9 for having committed the offence of kidnapping/abducting Bhajan Pal, Manjit and their children Jyoti, Seema and Sunil.
2. The case of the petitioner is that his son Bhajan Pal along with his family was living in the house of his uncle Dharpat Rai in Islamabad (Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur). The petitioner claims that on 4.1.1996, respondents No. 5 to 9 forged a sale deed in the name of Dhanpat Rai and on the same date kidnapped/abducted Bhajan Pal, his wife and their children Jyoti, Seema and Sunil. According to the petitioner, after coming to know about this kidnapping/abducting, he reported the matter to Station House Officer, Police Station, Mahilpur, on 6.1.1996 but the Station House Officer, Police Station Mahilpur did not register the FIR. The petitioner claims that he, therefore, approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 10.1.1996, who assured to take action. According to the petitioner, he approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, on 28.1.1996 but without any result. The petitioner also claims that he approached the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar. The copy of the complaint filed is annexure P- 1, wherein the remarks of the DIG of Police are found directing the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, to take action. The petitioner contends that the non-registration of the FIR is illegal and violative of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. In the complaint, annexure P-1, the petitioner has mentioned about the forgery and the abduction/kidnapping allegedly made by the private-respondents on 4.1.1996.
4. The respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a reply stating that Laxmi Devi, the sister of the petitioner submitted an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, on 30.1.1996, a copy of which was also received through Deputy Inspector General, Jalandhar, to examine and register a case. These respondents have also stated that on 30.1.1996, the petitioner also submitted an application regarding the kidnapping/abduction of Bhajan Pal and others, received through the Deputy Inspector General, Jalandhar. According to these respondents FIR No. 40 dated 17.2.1996, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 364, 447, 148, 149 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur, against respondents No. 5 to 9 and against the son of the petitioner, upon both these applications. According to the respondents the investigation in this case is being conducted by Police Station, Sadar, Hoshiarpur under the supervision of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur. These respondents have alleged in this reply, that the allegations of the petitioner regarding abduction of Bhajan Pal and his family members is also being investigated in the same FIR. According to these respondents, no such incident was reported by the petitioner to the Station House Officer, Police Station Mahilpur.
5. The third-respondent also filed a separate reply stating that the incident regarding kidnapping/abduction of Bhajan Pal and his family was not reported by the petitioner to the third-respondent. This respondent has also made a reference to FIR No. 40 dated 17.2.1996 registered against respondents No. 5 to 9 and petitioners son at Police Station, Sadar, Hoshiarpur.
6. The fourth-respondent has filed a separate reply making the similar allegations as are found in the reply of respondents No. 1 and 2.
7. The private-respondents No. 5 to 9 filed reply making reference to FIR No. 40 dated 17.2.1996. Th
