The failure of law enforcement to register a complaint constitutes a serious dereliction of duty, undermining public confidence in justice.

Order

20/05/2025

Instant revision petition under Section 397 /401 Cr.P.C . has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 04.03.2020, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar in Cr. Revision No.54/2019 whereby the learned revisional court while allowing the revision of respondent No.2, set aside the order dated 02.08.2019, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar whereby cognizance was taken against the respondent No.2 under Section 166A IPC .

Brief facts of the case are that on 23.07.2019, the petitioner/ complainant filed a complaint before the court of ACJM, Raisinghnagar stating that on 03.06.2019, his sister was standing outside their house, when an individual named Gouru arrived on a motorcycle and allegedly harassed her. Upon raising an alarm, Gouru fled the scene. On the same day, at about 8:30 PM, about fifteen persons armed with iron rods, sticks and country-made pistol arrived at the complainant’s house and assaulted him. These persons also threw bricks upon the petitioner. The said incident was reported on 04.06.2019 to SHO, PS Raisinghnagar, but he did not register the FIR. Subsequently, the petitioner sent an application to concerned S.P. for registration of FIR, however, no action was taken.

On filing the complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C ., the learned Magistrate sought an explanation from the concerned SHO regarding the registration of an FIR pertaining to the incident dated 03.06.2019. Upon which, the SHO clarified that FIR No.199/2019 had already been registered. However, upon further inquiry, it came to the knowledge of the Magistrate that FIR No.199/2019 was related to incident dated 21.07.2019 and not to the incident dated 03.06.2019. Additionally, an inquiry conducted by Dy.S.P., Raisinghnagar revealed that no complaint had been filed at the Police Station. Subsequently, vide order dated 02.08.2019, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the respondent No.2 for offence under Section 166A IPC .

Against the order dated 02.08.2019, the respondent No.2 filed a revision before the learned Additional Session Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar, which came to be allowed vide order dated 04.03.2020 and learned revisional court set aside the order of cognizance dated 02.08.2019. Hence, this revision petition.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the revision petition filed by the respondent No.2 before the revisional court, it was alleged that the petitioner had not submitted any report before the Police Station Raisinghnagar in respect of the incident dated 03.06.2019. Counsel submits that the learned revisional court failed to properly scrutinize the record of the case, as the record clearly contains the application/complaint dated 04.06.2019 given by the petitioner before the SHO, Raisinghnagar. Despite this, the Police did not register an FIR. Counsel further submits that the sole basis for allowing the revision of respondent No.2 is that no report was filed by the petitioner on 04.06.2019 and for the first time, the petitioner filed complaint before the court on 21.07.2019. However, the record unequivocally establishes that the petitioner indeed submitted a report before SHO, Raisinghngar on 04.06.2019. Thus, the impugned order passed by the revisional court is per se illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the learned revisional court has rightly set aside the order of cognizance. The impugned revisional order is a well reasoned order, warranting no interference from this Court. Counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Megha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan , SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.4919/2019, decided on 15.12.2020 .

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned revisional order as well as order of cognizance and perused the record.

In the present case, the petitioner reported an i