Important pointThe provisions of Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code is mandatory and the concerned officer is duty bound to register the case on the basis of such an information disclosing cognizable offence.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 154—Non registration of case by the police pursuant to a complaint filed by appellant—It was stated that appellant was in possession of land—Stay order was granted by the High Court protecting possession of appellant on 14.8.1997 and it was extended by another order—Allegations that respondents 4 to 9 broke open the lock and removed various articles on 9.9.1997 and 10.9.1997—Appellant’s grievance that an information of a cognizable offence has been filed before the SHO but no case was registered—Matter was brought to the notice of Police Commissioner, without any result—Writ petition filed by appellant was dismissed—High Court held that appellant has filed a contempt petition in 1997 and that is pending before the High Court—High Court found it difficult to direct to register a case on basis of information filed by appellant—High Court also held that appellant has alternative remedy available to her without indicating what is the alternative remedy available to appellant—Whether High Court erred in dismissing appellant’s petition—(Yes)—Police officer has to mandatorily register a case on a complaint of a cognizable offence by the citizen u/s 154 of the Code.
       Held : Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, at the outset, invites our attention to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent and submits that pursuant to the aforesaid observation of the High Court the complaint/representation has been subsequently examined by the respondent and found no genuine case was established. We are not convinced by this submission because the sole grievance of the appellant is that no case has been registered in terms of the mandatory provisions of Section 154(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Genuineness or otherwise of the information can only be considered after registration of the case. Genuineness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. We are also clearly of the view that the High Court erred in law in dismissing the petition solely on the ground that the contempt petition was pending and the appellant had an alternative remedy. The ground of alternative remedy nor pending of the contempt petition would be no substitute in law not to register a case when a citizen makes a complaint of a cognizable offence against the Police Officer. (Para 3)
       The provision of Section 154 of the Code is mandatory and the concerned officer is duty bound to register the case on the basis of such an information disclosing cognizable offence. Undisputedly, in the present case no case was registered pursuant to the complaint dated 9.9.1997 and 13.9.1997 filed by the appellant. It is also not disputed that the Contempt Petition CCP No. 307/1997 filed by the appellant is also pending disposal before the High Court. It is, however, stated by the respondent that the non-disposal of the contempt petition is due to the non-prosecution by the appellant. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the contempt petition has been pending since 1997 and as such petition should be disposed of with a sense of urgency otherwise the petition itself will loose all its force and the purpose for which the contempt is initiated would be defeated. In this case, admittedly, the complaint was filed against the Police Officer. Learned counsel for the parties are not at variance that in such a situation the interest of justice would be better served if this Court directs the CBI to register the case and investigate the matter. (Paras 5 to 7)
       We, accordingly, direct that the CBI shall now register a case and investigate of the complaint filed by the appellant on 9.9.1997 and 13.9.1997. The CBI can collect the complaint from the SHO, Police Station, Kapashera dated 9.9.1997 and 13.9.1997. The complainant will also provide photocopies of the complaint dated 9.9.1997 and 13.9.1997 in case the original complaint is not traceable in the Police Station. Since, the matter is pending from 1997 the CBI is directed to register the case and complete investigation within a period of three months from today. (Para 9)
       Result : Appeal disposed of accordingly.

Judgment

Sema, J.—The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 24.1.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The controversy in this appeal is confined to the non-registration of the case by the police pursuant to a complaint dated 9.9.1997 and 13.9.1997 filed by the appellant. It is stated that the appellant was in possession of the land. The stay order was granted by the High Court protecting the possession of the appellant on 14.8.1997 and it was extended by another order dated 10.9.1997, in the presence of the other side. However, the respondent Nos. 4 to 9 broke open the lock and removed various articles on 9.9.1997 and 10.9.1997. We make it clear that we are not entering into the merits of the case.

2. The grievance of the appellant is that an information of a cognizable offence has been filed by the appellant before the Station House Officer (SHO), Kapashera on 9.9.1997 and 13.9.1997. However, no case was registered by the concerned SHO. Thereafter, the matter was brought to the notice of the Police Commissioner, without any result. This has led the appellant to approach the High Court by filing Criminal Writ Petition No. 108 of 1998. By the impugned order the High Court was of the view that the appellant has filed a Contempt Petition CCP No. 307/1997 and that is pending before the High Court. The High Court found it difficult to direct to register a case on the basis of the information filed by the appellant. The High Court was also of the view that the appellant has alternative remedy available to her, albeit, without indicating what is the alternative remedy available to the appellant. The High Court ultimately also observed that should respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be seized of petitioner’s complaint or representation, they shall also examine and pass appropriate orders within three months.

3. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, at the outset, invites our attention to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent and submits that pursuant to the aforesaid observation of the High Court the complaint/representation has been subsequently examined by the respondent and found no genuine case was established. We are not convinced by this submission because the sole grievance of the appellant is that no case has been registered in terms of the mandatory provisions of Section 154(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Genuineness or otherwise of the information can only be considered after registration of the case. Genuineness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. We are also clearly of the view that the High Court erred in law in dismissing the petition solely on the ground that the contempt petition was pending and the appellant had an alternative remedy. The ground of alternative remedy nor pending of the contempt petition would be no substitute in law not to register a case when a citizen makes a complaint of a cognizable offence against the Police Officer.

4. That the Police Officer mandatorily registers a case on a complaint of a cognizable offence by the citizen under Section 154 of the Code are no more res integra. The point of law has been set at rest by this Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. This Court after examining the whole gamut and intricacies of the mandatory nature of Section 154 of the Code has arrived at the finding in paras 31 & 32 of the judgment as under:

"31. At the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence in compliance with the mandate of Section 154(1) of the Code, the concerned police officer cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information, laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. On the other hand, the officer in charge of a police station is statutorily obliged to r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document