Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 1852
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
Hitesh Bhardwaj - Appellants
Vs.
State of Punjab and Ors. - Respondent
CRM-M No. 26794 of 2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 27-10-2020
For the Appellant :Abhinav Sood, Advocate and Ramdeep Pratap Singh, D.A.G.
For the Respondents:A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate and H.S. Deol, Advocate
Headnote:
FIR Registration - Criminal Procedure - Section 482 - [FIR Registration] - [Criminal Procedure] - [Section 154(1) Cr.P.C., Section 154(3) Cr.P.C., Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P., 2013 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 979] - The court directed the registration of a criminal case against the private respondents in compliance with the guidelines issued in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P., emphasizing that the registration of an FIR is mandatory if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The court highlighted the legal provisions under Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. and Section 154(3) Cr.P.C., and the principles established in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P., emphasizing that the reliability, genuineness, and credibility of the information are not conditions precedent for registration of a case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought directions to register an FIR in relation to the murder of his mother against private respondents No. 4 to 8. The petitioner alleged that his mother was persuaded to travel to Batala, where she died under suspicious circumstances. Despite filing a complaint, the police did not take any action, leading to the petitioner filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking appropriate directions to register an FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the refusal to register an FIR was not in accordance with law and directed the registration of the case. The court emphasized that the registration of an FIR is mandatory if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, and highlighted the legal provisions and principles established in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P., 2013 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 979.
Issues: The main issue was the refusal of the police to register an FIR in relation to the murder of the petitioner's mother despite the filing of a complaint, leading to the petitioner seeking appropriate directions from the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory nature of FIR registration if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, highlighting the legal provisions under Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. and Section 154(3) Cr.P.C., and the principles established in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P., 2013 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 979.
Final Decision: The court accepted the petition and directed the registration of the case, emphasizing that the registration of an FIR does not imply any final opinion about the case, and that the police should investigate the offence in a lawful manner and act in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
The case was taken up for hearing through video conferencing.
1. Prayer made in this application is to place on record additional documents (Annexures P-16 to P-24) in addition to the inquiry report of DSP, City Batala (Annexure P-25) and speaking order dated 30.07.2020 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala (Annexure P-26).
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application and in the interest of justice, the same is allowed. Additional documents are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
Main case
3. Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking appropriate directions to register a First Information Report in pursuance of criminal complaint dated 22.03.2020 filed by the petitioner in respect of murder of Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj (mother of the petitioner) against private respondents No. 4 to 8.
4. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed before respondent No. 3 against respondent No. 4 (real brother of the petitioner), respondent No. 5 (wife of respondent No. 4), respondent No. 6 (brother of respondent No. 5) and respondents No. 7 and 8 (parents of respondent No. 5) with the allegations that respondent No. 4 was involved in the murder of his father Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj for which FIR No. 121 of 2013 was registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj South Police Station, New Delhi. He faced trial for about seven years and was acquitted. Now appeal against acquittal is pending in the Delhi High Court. Mother of petitioner was living with respondent No. 4. She succumbed to the demand of respondent No. 4 for appointing him the Director in all the Companies of family. In the year 2014, respondents No. 4 and 5 forced the mother of petitioner to register a Will in favour of respondent No. 4. The Will was registered in a secret manner in favour of respondent No. 4. Later on mother of petitioner made a handwritten Will on 22.02.2020 and this fact was told to the petitioner by his mother few days before her murder. When respondent No. 4 came to know about this Will, he was very much annoyed with the mother. Mother of petitioner was very much afraid of respondent No. 4.
5. It has been further alleged that respondents No. 4 to 8 persuaded mother of petitioner to travel to Golden Temple, Amritsar. She was taken to Batala at the residence of respondents No. 7 and 8 under the garb of showing some land of respondent No. 7. Out of some suspicion and fear, mother of complainant insisted that her nephew namely Sandeep and one Balbir Singh (Balli) would accompany her to Punjab. Respondents No. 4 to 8 along with Sandeep and Balbir Singh (Balli) reached the house of respondents No. 7 and 8 on 08.03.2020 at midnight about 1.30 A.M. Respondent No. 4 insisted his mother not to sleep in common room, rather to sleep in his room only. Respondent No. 4 and his mother rested in one room, whereas Balbir Singh (Balli) and Sandeep slept in another room. On 08.03.2020, when Balbir Singh (Balli) woke up at 7.00 A.M., he found that mother of petitioner was not around. He remained under the belief that she might have gone somewhere. Having waited till 8.00 A.M., he inquired from respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 8, but they did not inform him properly. At about, 10.00 A.M., Balbir Singh (Balli) was informed by respondent No. 4 that his mother suffered heart attack early in the morning and she was taken to Hospital in Batala. Thereafter, Balbir Singh (Balli) was taken to Akal Hospital by respondent No. 4 to show the dead body of his mother.
6. The complainant further alleged that Akal Hospital is very small nursing home. Respondent No. 4 did not take his mother to big Hospitals like Batala Hospital, Mahajan Hospital and Akash Hospital in Batala. Mother of petitioner had no past medical history of any heart disease. She was taken to the Hospital early in the morning along with respondents No. 6 and 7. Sandeep and Balbir Singh (Balli) who were sleeping in adjace
