Date : 03/08/2017 ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.1 State.
2. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the applicant has a grievance to redress as regards the inaction on the part of the police authority in not registering the First Information Report pursuant to the complaint lodged by him in writing dated 17th July, 2017 addressed to the Police Inspector, A Division, Town Police Station, Godhra, Dist. Panchmahal, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The Police Inspector, A Division, Town Police Station, Godhra, Dist. Panchmahal, is directed to take into consideration R/SCR.A/5633/2017 ORDER the complaint filed by the petitioner in writing (Annexure - A to this petition) and after going through the same, take a decision, whether the same discloses commission of a cognizable offence or not. After taking into consideration the complaint and other materials, if any, the Police Inspector is of the view that the same discloses commission of a cognizable offence, then appropriate directions be issued for registration of the FIR forthwith at the concerned Police Station. However, the Police Inspector, after going through the materials, is of the view that no case is made out for registration of the FIR, then in such circumstances, he shall inform the petitioner in writing about the same by assigning reasons in brief, preferably within a period of four weeks from today.
4. The Police Inspector is also directed to immediately consider the complaint filed by the writ-applicant herein keeping in mind the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and other, reported in 2017 (2) SCC 779. Which reads as under:-
8. The exceptions that were carved out pertain to medical negligence cases as has been stated in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab [4]. The Court also referred to the authorities in P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras[5] and CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh[6] and finally held that what is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to R/SCR.A/5633/2017 ORDER register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible, etc. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.
5. The Supreme Court has made itself very clear that if the complaint discloses commission of cognizable offence, then there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. The other considerations like whether the allegations are false or genuine or credible are not at all germane at the stage of the registration of the FIR.
6. With the above observations and directions, this petition is disposed of. I clarify that I have otherwise not gone into the merits of the matter.
7. For any reason, if the police authorities refuse to register the FIR, it shall be open for the petitioner to avail of the remedy under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Direct service is permitted. (A.J.DESAI, J.) PALLAVI
Comments