Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdeep Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 14 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=
116 CRM-W-308-2024 in/and CRWP-2006-2024
JAGDEEP KAUR AND OTHERS Vs.STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS
Present: Mr.Aruz Khan, Advocate for the applicants-petitioners.
*****
CRM-W-308-2024 The present application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to prepone the date of hearing of the main petition.
Heard.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the date of hearing of the main case is preponed to today and the same is taken up for hearing.
Main case The petitioners have filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to direct the official respondents No.3 and 4 to protect the live and liberty of the petitioners as they are being harassed and humiliated by respondent No.3 by calling them in the Police Station time and again without any rhyme and reasons.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of Court, Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and submits that in the present case, a complaint dated 28.12.2023 has been filed by respondent No.5 against the petitioners and other persons and the same complaint is being enquired into by Inspector Rajbir Singh, SHO Police Station, NRI Urban Estate, Sector-39, District Ludhiana.
Heard.
The matters pertaining to holding enquiry, re-enquiry and further enquiry in the complaints filed by various complainants, without registration of the FIR, has been discussed by this Court on 18.10.2004 in the matter of Mohinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and others (CRM-M21452- 2004) wherein this court has observed as under:-
"34. In the same context, reference may be made to a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court reported as Sanjeev Kumar v. Commissioner of Police, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 261 wherein while relying on Bhajan Lal's case (supra), State 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 15-03-2024 08:29:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:= 116 CRM-W-308-2024 in/and CRWP-2006-2024 -2- of U.P. v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 221, P. Sirajuddin etc. v. The State of Madras, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 520, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India & others, 1997(4) RCR (Criminal) 594 (SC) : 1996(11) SCC 582 and Satish Kumar Goel's case (supra) held in the following terms :-
"22. From the aforesaid precedents it is clear that following conclusions can conveniently be drawn : (i) whenever it is brought in writing or otherwise that a cognizable offence has been committed in terms of the decisions in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) a First Information Report should be recorded, (ii) if the information given is not clear or creats a doubt as to whether it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence some enquiry can precede before registration of the offence,
(iii) in case of a complaint of such nature made against public servants it is doubtful or similarly if it found that ex facie there is some un-truth in the same, an enquiry can be conducted before registration of the case, (iv) the enquiry need not partake that of an investigation. It only is a preliminary enquiry that can be held."
35. In a large number of cases, it has been found that the police has been resorting to the measure of ordering enquiries at various levels. Reference has been made to the entire case law as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court which provides for no scope for any such enquiry in case informationgiven discloses commission of a cognizable offence. The only requirement is that the information so lodged must provide a base for the police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. When this condition is satisfied, the registration of an FIR under Section 154 Criminal Procedure Code is a requirement of statute."
Still further, while considering the issue relating to holding multiple enquiries by the police, without registration of the FIR, was 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 15-03-2024 08:29:09 ::: Neutral Citation No:= 116 CRM-W-308-2024 in/and CRWP-2006-2024 -3- considered again by this Court and the following observations were made by this Court in its order dated 12.01.2006 passed in CRM-M-18244-2009 titled as 'Jaswinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and others:-
"Multiple inquiries not only cause injustice to the petitioner- complainant but also become a source of abuse, harassment and cause delay in conclusion of criminal investigation and trial.
How many inquiries and by how many officials? A sort of self- discipline is required to be instilled in Punjab Police by the officials who are at the helm of affairs.
To await the affidavit of the DGP, adjourned to 13th August, 2008.
At this stage, Counsel for the petitioner states that now Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar has assumed the jurisdiction and in a fresh inquiry, has called the petitioner to appear.
Till the affidavit is furnished by the DGP, petitioner need not appear before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar."
In compliance of the above order dated 23.7.2008 passed by this Court, Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh has file an affidavit on behalf of State of Punjab. He has stated as under:-
"1. That it was observed, enquiries in criminal cases were being got conducted by the parties from time to time resulting in multiplicity and different reports.
2. That, therefore, this office issued instructions on 1.4.2008 elaborating the procedure to be followed in future. These instructions are normally being followed in principle by field officers. As a matter of principle only one enquiry is required. However, in some cases in the interest of justice and fair play 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 15-03-2024 08:29:09 ::: Neutral Citation No:= 116 CRM-W-308-2024 in/and CRWP-2006-2024 -4- and to reach the truth it becomes imperative to get the matter further enquired. Some times further enquiry is ordered/directed by Judicial Court or Human Rights Commission or other statutory bodies or the State."
In view of the affidavit filed, it will be necessary to hold that instructions issued by the Director General of Police, Punjab on 1.4.2008 be strictly construed and once enquiry has been held, no further enquiry ought to be held by the police except for the orders given by the Courts and Human Rights Commission or any other statutory body of the State or as envisaged in the instructions issued by the Director General of Police, which say that if inquiry is to be got conducted from offi cers of outside district/range, then the case be sent for further inquiry after approval of the Director General of Police and the Punjab Government. Any violation of the instructions, Annexure P-9, shall not be looked favourably and the concerned person holding enquiry shall be fastened with costs."
The concerned Investigating Officer is directed to remain present in the Court and is further directed to explain the authority of law, which permits him to conduct an enquiry in a complaint dated 28.12.2023 submitted by respondent No.5 List on 15.03.2024.
(N.S. SHEKHAWAT) 14.03.2024 JUDGE mks Neutral Citation No:= 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 15-03-2024 08:29:09 :::