Point of Law: speculation of police that the information as to the theft might have been lodged for the purpose of claiming insurance amount falsely could not be given weight by the Magistrate legally for holding the First Information Report lodged falsely.

JUDGMENT :

Case is called out.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.A. Siddiqui, Advocate and learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Balkeshwar Srivastava, Advocate are present.

2. The instant writ petition is moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court over its subordinate court against the impugned order dated 12.9.2006 passed by the Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court No.12, Sultanpur in the capacity of the revisional court. The said revision was moved by the petitioner against the order dated 20.4.2006 passed by IIIrd, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No.386 of 2006 (Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P.).

3. Before going through the aforesaid two impugned orders of the learned courts below namely the revisional court of Additional Session Judge/F.T.C. Sultanpur as well the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur so as to look into the vices crept into the impugned orders giving cause of action to file this petition.

4. It would be relevant to give a brief account of the matter. Petitioner was carrying on the business of Tent and Shamiana at Jamo Bazar, Sultanpur in the name and style 'Sambal Tent House'. In the intervening night of 7/8.05.2005, a theft took place in his tent house by breaking the locks and doors of the back side, the thieves carried away almost all the articles of Shamiana valued of approximately sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. On coming into the knowledge of theft on the next morning, petitioner rushed to the police station and immediately given a written complaint which was not registered by the local police as First Information Report. On 19.05.2005 after a considerable delay of 11 days the police registered the F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.125/2005 under Section 379 I.P.C., Police Station-Jamo, Sultanpur. The investigation started and ultimately a final report was submitted before the court on 20.04.2006. The final report states that report as to the incident of theft was false and lodged with malafide motive of claiming insurance amount, there is no reason to proceed with the case. Learned court below accepted the final report despite a protest petition against the said report was there and summoned the complainant (petitioner) under Section 182 Cr.P.C. for criminal prosecution.

5. It is the aforesaid order aggrieved from which the petitioner firstly moved a criminal revision which was heard by Additional Session Judge/F.T.C. Court No.12, Sultanpur who rejected the same. The petitioner then came to the High Court with petition stating illegality and irregularity in the impugned orders passed by the court below which are given hereunder.

(i) The theft was committed by unknown thieves, therefore, police was to investigate the matter and burdened to find out the culprits.

(ii) The report was made on morning of 8.5.2005 promptly within reasonably possible time from the commission of offence in the night of 7/8.05.2005 but police itself delayed in registering the F.I.R. for 11 days on 19.05.2005. Meanwhile, no investigation could be started for want of registration of F.I.R.

(iii) The statement of natives of the locality was not recorded.

(iv) The police submitted final report before the court without investigating the matter seriously, simply on speculation that the FIR of theft might have been lodged for claiming insurance falsely.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that now more than 15 years has already been elapsed from the date of incident and the witnesses of the incident who were native of the locality are not available so as to depose before the court with regard to the incident.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the impugned order was passed only on consideration of the case diary submitted by the police station and the final report was accepted on the basis of materials on case diary, however, case diary in itself have no material except a speculation as to the lodging