Bombay High Court
Industrial Estate vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 December, 2011
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, P. D. Kode
1 wp1357.06
SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1357 OF 2006
Mr.Mukesh R.Gokal )
Aged 53 years, Occ. Business )
Proprietor of M/s. Hall Mark Industries, )
having office at 451, A-1, Shah-Nahar )
Industrial Estate, Lower Parel, Mumbai-13 ) ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra )
)
2. The Commissioner of Police,
ig )
Crawford Market, Mumbai )
)
3. Mr.Shere Khane, )
The Senior Inspector of Police, )
N.M.Joshi Marg, Police Station, )
Mumbai. )
)
4. The Senior Inspector of Police, )
N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai)
)
5. Mr.Bhaskaran, )
Dy. S. P., Cuddapah Div., )
Dist. Cuddapah, Andhra Pradesh )
)
6. Mr.Rammana Reddy, )
21/50, Pedda Pagupala, )
Jammala Madugu, Dist. Cuddapah, )
Andhra Pradesh )
)
7. Mr.G. Gangawane, )
Asst. Sub-Inspector )
)
8. Mr.S. Mohammad, )
Police Constable No.1674 )
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:01:06 :::
2 wp1357.06
)
9. Mr.Subbareddy D.V. )
Police Constable No.3160 )
)
10. Mr.C. M. Chandra, )
Police Constable No.1124 )
)
Above 7 to 10 are having address at )
Jammalmudugudu Urban Police Station,)
Dist.: Cuddapah, Andhra Pradesh ) ...Respondents
......
Mr.Rajendra Sorankar for Petitioner.
Mr.V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Mr.Ganesh Gole a/w Ms. Mallika Ingale for Respondent Nos.5 & 7 to 10.
......
CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND
P.D.KODE, JJ.
DATED :- DECEMBER 19, 2011.
JUDGMENT (Per A.M.Khanwilkar, J.) :
1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner prays for direction against the respondents to take cognizance of
the complaint made by the petitioner dated 10th June, 2006 and submit
appropriate report in that behalf after conducting inquiry. It is further
prayed that the investigation of the case be entrusted to third agency other
than respondent No.3.
3 wp1357.06
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner asserts that he is dealing in the garment
export business and has manufacturing facilities at Chennai. He had
business transaction in the year 2000 with one M/s.Lalitha Fashions of
Chennai having their business at Lalitha Handlooms, No.25,
Shanmugarayan Street, Chennai-600 021. Later on, some difference and
disputes arose between the parties. According to the petitioner because of
the delay in supply of material, the petitioner had to suffer substantial loss.
Notwithstanding that the said firm filed criminal complaint of cheating
against the petitioner instead of settling the accounts with the petitioners.
The petitioner received summons from the Office of Inspector of Police,
General Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai stating that said Lalitha Fashions
had filed criminal complaint of cheating against the petitioner at Chennai
Crime Branch and the petitioner was required to attend the said
investigation. It is stated that in response to the said summons, the
petitioner attended the Office of the Investigating Officer in the said case at
Chennai for the purpose of investigation. In the said investigation,
statement of employees of the petitioner's firm as well as financial manager
were recorded by the Crime Branch Officer from Chennai. After
completion of the investigation and recording of statement and collecting
4 wp1357.06
evidence, Crime Branch Officer of Chennai closed the investigation.
According to the petitioner, the said complaint filed by Lalitha Fashions
was not pressed further by the Crime Branch against the petitioner. That
was orally informed by the concerned Officer to the petitioner.
3. However, the petitioner had to face some untoward situation on 3rd
May, 2006. The same has been highlighted in the Advocate's letter dated
17th May, 2006, sent to the Senior Inspector of Police, N.M.Joshi Marg
Police Station, Commissioner of Police, Mumbai and Joint Commissioner
of Police (Crime), Crawford Market, Mumbai. Later on, the petitioner sent
his own letter to the Senior Inspector of Police, Commissioner of Police,
and Joint Commissioner of Police dated 10th June, 2006 reiterating the same
facts. The relevant extract of the said written complaint sent by the
petitioner reads thus :
"3. To my utter shock and surprise, on 3rd May, 2006 at about 2.30 p.m.
Mr. V.N. Narayanan along with six persons entered into my office situated
at the above mentioned address and barged into my cabin. I was
surrounded by all the said seven persons. Out of the said seven persons,
two were uninformed persons claiming to be the police personnel from
Andhra Pradesh State and one person introduced himself as Mr. Ramanna
Reddy and claimed to be the relative of Mr. Rajshekhar Reddy, the
Hon'ble Chief Minster of Andhra Pradesh State. Two more persons were
also accompanying him with suspicious feature and one constable from the
above No.1's police station i.e. N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station
accompanied them as well. All the above mentioned persons, after
entering in my cabin started abusing and threatening me and also forcibly
5 wp1357.06
tried to remove me from my office under the pretext of non bailable
warrant being issued by a local Court at Cuddapah, Andhra Pradesh. I was
also threatened with dire consequences if I did not pay Rs.25 lacs to the
said persons immediately. It is pertinent to note that the entire incident
occurred in my office in presence of my staff and my wife Mrs. Sonal
Gokal. At that time, I was not given an opportunity to talk to my lawyer
and/or to use my phone. I was then immediately forcibly picked up and
arrested from my office under the guise of the F.I.R. being registered at
Andhra Pradesh for business transactions of the year 2000 with the said
M/s. Lalita Fashions. I was informed in police custody that there was a
non-bailable warrant pending against me and my son Mr. Jai M. Gokal
from a Court situated at Cuddapah (Andhra Pradesh State).
4. I was then forcibly taken into custody at N.M. Joshi Marg Police
Station by the above mentioned persons with the help of a local constable
and while in their custody I was threatened to be taken to Andhra Pradesh
directly from the said local police station. While in custody, the said Mr. V.
Narayanan with the help of Mr. Ramanna Reddy extorted pressure upon
me either to cough up Rs.25 lacs immediately in cash or else they would
take me to Andhra Pradesh with the help of the said Mr. Ramanna Reddy
and will put my life in trouble.
5. My mental status was so disturbed that I thought it right to secure
my life first as I was not getting any assistance from the local police, who
asked me to either accompany those persons to Andhra Pradesh or pay the
amount of money as demanded. Under the guise of non-bailable warrant, I
was sought to be taken to Andhra Pradesh in police custody and in the
process an atmosphere was created in my mind to try and arrange the
funds that were demanded from me through my company accountant Mr.
Mahesh Phansekar. However, we could only successfully arrange Rs.15
lacs, but Mr. V. Narayanan and Mr. Ramanna Reddy refused to accept the
said money and further threatened that they would trouble me if I did not
arrange for Rs.25 lacs in cash. After lot of pleading that it was not possible
to arrange such a huge amount in a short span of time, the said persons
forced me to part with two post dated cheques of Rs.5 lacs each drawn at
Central Bank of India, Fountain Branch, Mumbai being cheque Nos.
718204 and 718205 dated 3rd July, 2006 and 14th July, 2006 respectively.
The entire incident happened in a very short span by holding gun to my
head. I was put under fear of being harassed by perpetrators by taking me
to Andhra Pradesh and thus Rs.15 lacs in cash and two post dated cheques
were extorted from my possession. Thus, by putting me under fear for my
life and being jailed under process of law (doubtful non-bailable warrant),
the said persons mis-led the local police station in getting me arrested and
keeping me in police station under the guise of non-bailable warrant,
where I was forced by the above mentioned persons to part with Rs.15 lacs
in cash and Rs.10 lacs in cheques to save my life.
6 wp1357.06
6. The above incident caused immense mental torture and shock,
because of which I fell severely ill and was bed ridden for twelve days and
was under medication." (emphasis supplied)
4. The petitioner accordingly called upon the Officer In-charge of the
local police Station to register FIR against the named persons for offence of
kidnapping and extortion of Rs.15,00,000/- in cash and two cheques of Rs.
5,00,000/- each under the guise of legal process and by misleading the local
Police Station and misusing the said machinery for that purpose. As no
response was received by the petitioner, the petitioner has eventually
approached this Court by way of present Writ Petition on 22nd June, 2006.
5. This Petition came to be admitted vide order dated 28th November,
2006. Allegations of inaction of registration of FIR is essentially made
against respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 was Senior Inspector of
Police of the concerned Police Station at the relevant time. He has filed his
personal affidavit to oppose this Petition, sworn on 15th July, 2006. In the
said reply affidavit, it is stated that the allegations made by the petitioner
are afterthought. That grievance was made by the petitioner after about
twelve days from the date of incident. At no point of time, after the incident
7 wp1357.06
in the Police Station on 3rd June, 2006, the petitioner complained about
that - either to the respondent No.3 or any other police officer. But, sent
written communication dated 10th June, 2006 for the first time. That is a
figment of imagination of the petitioner. The respondent No.3 has then
stated that the dispute between the petitioner and Lalitha Fashions was
purely of a civil nature. Thus, the petitioner wants to convert the civil
dispute into criminal case by giving colour as the criminal case. The
respondent No.3 has then asserted that the petitioner has suppressed
material fact that the police men attached to the Jammalamadugu & Urban
Police Station, District Cuddapah, Andhra Pradesh had visited N.M.Joshi
Marg Police Station on 3rd May, 2006 and submitted a letter in writing that
they wanted help of local police for the purpose of investigation in
connection with MECR No.17/2006 under Sections 409, 420 of the Indian
Penal Code, which was registered against the petitioner by them on 9th
February, 2006. They had represented that an order has been passed by the
concerned Court on the basis of which the said request was being made by
them. They produced Photostat copy thereof along with relevant document
and copy of the FIR. The respondent No.3 has then stated that he had
personally called Mr.Bhaskaran, Dy.S.P. attached to Cuddapah Division in
order to ascertain the genuineness of the documents so produced before
8 wp1357.06
him. After verifying the genuineness of documents, one Police Constable
No.0961263 was deputed with the police team arrived from Andhra Pradesh
for their help. A Station Diary to that effect has been recorded. That police
team went to the Office of the petitioner and after some time, returned back
along with the petitioner to the police station for carrying out investigation.
They were provided a separate room where only the police officials of the
Andhra Pradesh were present to interrogate the petitioner. It is further stated
that after the investigation and inquiry was over, the police team returned to
their Police Station and the petitioner left the police station. A Station
Diary to that effect was contemporaneously recorded. The respondent No.3
has stated that when the interrogation of the petitioner was in progress, no
other person other than the police officers of the Andhra Pradesh was
present in the said room. On the basis of the above reply, the respondent
No.3 has asserted that the written complaint sent by the petitioner is nothing
but an afterthought.
6. The petition is resisted by respondent No.7 as well as respondent No.
5 in their affidavits both dated 28th September, 2006. The respondent No.5
has stated that he had never visited Mumbai. He has denied his presence in
Mumbai on the relevant date. On merits he has stated that the police team
9 wp1357.06
from Andhra Pradesh had proceeded to Mumbai on the basis of the
summons issued by the Court of competent jurisdiction and they had
returned back after interrogating the petitioner. He has further stated that
with regard to the allegations made against respondent Nos.7 to 10, an
inquiry was also conducted by the Officer on Special (OSD), Cuddapah
wherein, it was found that the allegations were baseless. He has prayed for
dismissal of the Writ Petition.
7.
The respondent No.7 who was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of
Police has filed his affidavit not only to deny the allegations made against
him but also justified the action of interrogating the petitioner. He has stated
that on 3rd May, 2006, he along with the other Police officials of Andhra
Pradesh visited N.M.Joshi Marg Police Station at 3.00 p.m. and presented a
written requisition to the Station House Officer to provide one local
constable to assist in the investigation. He has stated that he visited the
Office of the petitioner and informed the petitioner about the purpose of
their visit from Andhra Pradesh. He has stated that the petitioner was
requested to cooperate in the investigation. He has also stated that the
petitioner came to N.M.Joshi Marg Police Station with his wife and office
staff. He examined the petitioner in the said Police Station in a separate
10 wp1357.06
room provided by the Senior Inspector of the said Police Station. He has
further stated about the disclosure made by the petitioner during the
interrogation. The petitioner had revealed that the father of the complainant
by name Narayana had come to his office on the same morning and settled
the matter. The said Narayana received Rs.15 lakhs in cash and two post
dated cheques of Rs.5,00,000/- each. The said Narayana gave cash receipt
and left Mumbai. This respondent asserts that, he verified the above
position and confirmed it with the complainant (Babu) and complainant's
father (Narayana). It transpired that Narayana went back to the Police
Station at Jammalamadugu on 6th May, 2006 to report to the said Police
Station. In substance, the said respondent has denied the allegations made
by the petitioner about the involvement in the commission of the alleged
offence of the police officials from Andhra Pradesh. The sum and
substance of the reply affidavit is that the allegations made by the petitioner
are baseless and the Petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. Before analysing the pleadings and the argument of the rival parties
we would think it apposite to advert to the settled legal position. The Full
Bench of our High Court in the case of Sandeep Rammilan Shukla &
Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors reported in 2008 All.M.R. (Cri.)
11 wp1357.06
3486 has held that Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code is a
significant provision and has considerable impact on administration of
justice as well as have substantial effect on the Society. The Court
proceeded to address the question as to whether any kind of discretion is
available to the Officer In-charge of a Police Station in terms of Section
154 or he is left with no choice whatever as per the circumstances of the
case. After analysing the decisions of the Apex Court on the point and
interpreting Section 154 of the Code, the Full Bench has opined that
Section 154 in no uncertain terms imposes an absolute duty upon an Officer
In-charge of a Police Station to record information of a cognizable offence
in prescribed book/books. It then went on to examine the question whether
this absolute duty arising from the provisions of Section 154 of the Code by
definite implication puts an absolute prohibition on the Police Officer in-
charge of a Police Station to do any other act ancillary thereto or otherwise
under the scheme of the Act. It went on to observe that there is no specific
provision or legislative command where pre-investigative inquiry is either
specifically permitted or prohibited. On this finding it has been held that as
a rule and as requirement of law, the Police Officer in-charge of a Police
Station hardly has any discretion in registering the case once the
information given to him discloses a cognizable offence. It may be useful to
12 wp1357.06
advert to the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumari vs.
State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. reported in (2006) 2 SCC 677. In that case,
the grievance of the appellant was that no case was registered by the Police
Officer inspite of the mandate of Section 154 of the Code. It was argued
that 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. For considering that
submission, the Court in the first place referred to the exposition in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, which has
held that the Police Officer concerned cannot embark upon an inquiry 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. It is further held in the said decision that the Officer
In-charge of a Police Station is statutorily obliged to register a case and
then to proceed with the investigation if he has reason to suspect the
commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 of the
Code to investigate, subject to the proviso to Section 157. The Court
adverted to the exposition in paragraphs 31 to 33 in the case of State of
Haryana (supra).
13 wp1357.06
9. Keeping in mind the mandate of Section 154 of the Code, we may
first analyse the contents of the written complaint sent by the petitioner to
the Senior Inspector of Police of the local Police Station as also to
Commissioner of Police, Mumbai and the Joint Commissioner of Police
(Crime) Mumbai. From the extracted portion of the said written complaint
dated 10th June, 2006, in the first place grievance is made about the manner
in which the police personnel from Andhra Pradesh entered the office of the
petitioner and about the threat administered by them including by resorting
to name dropping. It is then alleged that the said persons after entering the
cabin of the petitioner started abusing and threatening him and also tried to
forcibly remove him from his office under the pretext of non-bailable
warrant against him issued by the Court of Cuddapah, Andhra Pradesh. It is
then alleged that the petitioner was threatened with dire consequence if he
failed to pay Rs.25 lakhs to the said intruders, which incident had happened
in the presence of petitioner's staff and his wife. The petitioner was not
even given opportunity to get in touch with his Advocate or to use his
phone. Instead, he was picked up and taken away to N.M.Joshi Marg Police
Station. It is then stated that while in custody, the petitioner was threatened
to be taken to Andhra Pradesh directly from the said local Police Station
unless he arranged for Rs.25 lakhs in cash immediately. It is alleged that
14 wp1357.06
when the petitioner realised that he would not get any assistance from the
local police of N.M.Joshi Marg Police Station, he decided to arrange for
funds to meet the demand of the police team who arrived from Andhra
Pradesh. Accordingly, he could arrange only Rs.15 lakhs in cash in such a
short time. However, the team of police officers from Andhra Pradesh were
not willing to accept that part amount and forced the petitioner to part with
two post dated cheques of Rs.5 lakhs each by holding gun on his head. The
complaint thus discloses case of extortion, threat and pressure inflicted on
the petitioner by the police team who had arrived from Andhra Pradesh and
also of misleading the Officials of local police station of N.M.Joshi Marg
Police Station. Further, a faint grievance is made against the police officials
of N.M.Joshi Marg Police Station of not providing assistance to the
petitioner. The gravamen of the grievance is against the police team who
had arrived from Andhra Pradesh and of misusing their police powers.
10. From the case made out in the written complaint, it clearly reveals
that the grievance of the petitioner was one of being threatened and forced
to part with huge amount by the police officials who had arrived from
Andhra Pradesh by administering threat and under force. Even if the
allegation against them of having abducted the petitioner from his office is
15 wp1357.06
to be ignored, as the police team from Andhra Pradesh had arrived to
investigate the case registered against the petitioner at the instance of
Lalitha Fashions on the basis of summons issued by the Court of competent
jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh, their action of compelling the petitioner to
part with such huge amount to settle the claim of Lalitha Fashions, by no
stretch of imagination, can be said to be legitimate and part of process of
investigation of the case. It is no duty of the Investigating Officer, who is
investigating the criminal case, to force the accused to return the amount to
the complainant or the representative of the complainant. If the
Investigating Officer has reason to believe that the accused is in possession
of the crime money, can exercise his police powers in accordance with law
of attaching the property or freezing the bank account of the accused to
secure the crime money. But by no stretch of imagination, the Investigating
Officer can force the accused in the pretext of investigation to part with the
amount in cash or post dated cheques.
11. Suffice it to observe that the allegations in the written compliant
discloses commission of cognizable offence by the police officials and
other persons who had arrived from Andhra Pradesh for investigation of the
case. Thus, going by the settled legal position, it was mandatory for the
16 wp1357.06
Officer in-charge of the Police Station to register the case. Indeed, as the
persons named in the written compliant sent by the petitioner were police
officials from Andhra Pradesh, it would have been legitimate for the officer
in-charge of the N.M.Joshi Marg Police Station to undertake inquiry before
registration of the FIR. However, from the reply affidavit filed by the
respondent No.3 there is not even a remote suggestion that such attempt
was made by the Officer in-charge of N.M.Joshi Marg Police Station. The
plea taken in the reply affidavit by the said Officer is that the written
complaint was disregarded as there was delay in making such complaint. In
that, the incident in question had happened on 3rd May, 2006 but the written
complaint was sent after about 12 days from the date of the incident.
That by itself, in our opinion, can be no justification for refusal to register
the FIR. The cause for delay in submitting complaint whether just or
otherwise could be examined by the Investigating Officer to form opinion
about the genuineness or credibility of the information. It is well
established position that it is no business of the Police Officer to inquire as
to whether the information laid before him is reliable or genuine or
otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is
not reliable or credible (See State of Haryana (supra) paragraph 31).
Similarly, it is incomprehensible as to how the respondent No.3 could have
17 wp1357.06
ignored the written complaint on the specious ground that the dispute
between the parties was purely of a civil nature. Notably, the written
complaint sent by the petitioner was not in respect of dispute with Lalitha
Fashions but about the conduct and high handed action of the team of the
police officials and persons who had arrived from Andhra Pradesh in the
guise of investigation of the criminal case filed against the petitioner by
said M/s.Lalitha Fashions. In our opinion, therefore, the explanation
offered in the reply affidavit cannot be accepted as just and sufficient cause
for non-registration of the FIR.
12. We may notice that the respondent No.3 in his reply affidavit has
clarified the position that the involvement of police officials from
N.M.Joshi Marg Police Station was only to facilitate investigation of the
criminal action by the police team who had arrived from Andhra Pradesh.
None of the police officers from that Police Station were involved with the
investigation and interrogation of the petitioner. As aforesaid, in the written
complaint, there is no allegation of overt act of the police officials from
State of Maharashtra. The gravamen of allegation is directed against the
team of police officials and persons who had arrived from Andhra Pradesh
and about their acts of commission and omission.
18 wp1357.06
13. We shall now turn to the reply affidavits by the respondent No.7 and
respondent No.5. As regards respondent No.7, he had in the first place
denied all the material allegations in the written complaint made by the
petitioner. The affidavit discloses circumstances which according to the
said respondent would belie the case made out by the petitioner in the
written complaint. In the reply affidavit, it is stated that the police team
from Andhra Pradesh after landing in Mumbai first reached N.M.Joshi
Marg Police Station at 3.00 p.m. From there they proceeded to the Office of
the petitioner for the purpose of investigation in CR No.17/2006 of
Jamalmudugu (Urban) Police Station and requested the petitioner to
cooperate. The petitioner along with his wife and office staff came to
N.M.Joshi Marg Police Station. The petitioner was taken in a separate room
where he disclosed that the father of the complainant by name Narayana
and other persons came to his office and settled the matter. He stated that
Narayana was in receipt of Rs.15 lakhs in cash and two post dated cheques
for Rs.5 lakhs each. The petitioner also disclosed that the said Narayana
gave cash receipt and left Mumbai. The respondent No.7 has stated that he
got these facts confirmed and then recorded the submissions of complainant
Babu and Narayana (complainant's father) when he returned back to
19 wp1357.06
Andhra Pradesh on 6th May, 2006. Thus, the explanation, is that, the entire
incident stated in the written complaint is false and figment of imagination
of the petitioner. Whether this version is right or otherwise will be matter
for inquiry/investigation. As observed in catena of decisions, there is
hardly any option available to the officer in-charge of the police station but
to register the FIR under Section 154 of the Code once it discloses
commission of a cognizable offence. Indeed, since the named persons in
the written compliant were police officials from Andhra Pradesh, it would
have been legitimate for the officer in-charge of N.M.Joshi Marg Police
Station to conduct preliminary inquiry before registration of FIR. Nowhere
in the reply affidavit filed by respondents, in particular respondent No.3, it
is stated that such inquiry was conducted by the officer in-charge of
N.M.Joshi Marg Police Station. We are conscious of the fact that the
respondent No.5 Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Jammalamudugu and Sub-
Divisional Officer, Cuddapah of State of Andhra Pradesh, has stated that
an inquiry was conducted by the Officer on Special duty (OSD), Cuddapah
to inquire into the allegations and it proved to be baseless. That inquiry
done by Officer on Special Duty (OSD), Cuddapah will be of no avail. The
inquiry was required to be done by the Officer in-charge of the N.M.Joshi
Marg Police Station soon after the receipt of the written complaint
20 wp1357.06
disclosing commission of cognizable offence by persons named therein.
That has not happened in the present case.
14. The argument of the respondents, is that, there is no mention in the
written complaint given by the petitioner as to who brought the cash
amount and from where and such other details are not disclosed. As is well
established, that would be matter for investigation and trial but cannot be
just cause to refuse registration of FIR. Even the plea taken in the reply
affidavits filed by respondent Nos.5 and 7 respectively that the petitioner
had handed over two signed cheques and settled the dispute with the
complainant Lalitha Fashions would be a defence available to the accused.
It is intriguing to note that the date on which the police team from Andhra
Pradesh arrived in Mumbai, on the same day the complainant's father
Narayana and other persons also allegedly visited the office of the
petitioner for settling the matter. If this stand is questionable, it may
inevitably reinforce the case of the petitioner that the police team in the
guise of investigation threatened, pressurized and forced the petitioner to
part with huge amount on the same day in cash as also two post dated
cheques. The amount recovered from the petitioner on the same day
admittedly is Rs.25 lakhs. In the written complaint, it is stated that out of
21 wp1357.06
the seven persons two were in uniform claiming to be the police personnel
from Andhra Pradesh and one person introduced himself as Mr.Ramanna
Reddy and claimed to be the relative of then Chief Minister of Andhra
Pradesh State. The other two persons who were accompanying them,
appeared to be constables.
15. Considering the above, we have no hesitation in taking the view that
the written complaint, in particular, the extracted portion thereof in
paragraph No.2 above discloses commission of cognizable offence by the
named persons. In that view of the matter, as per the provisions of Section
154 of the Code, it was mandatory for the Officer In-charge of N.M.Joshi
Marg Police Station to register the FIR. The justification offered by the
Officer In-charge of the N.M.Joshi Marg Police Station for not registering
the FIR is untenable. As a result, we would direct the Officer In-charge of
N.M.Joshi Marg Police Station to take steps to register the FIR on the basis
of written complaint made by the petitioner. As is noticed earlier, since
allegations are essentially made against police officials from Andhra
Pradesh, it would be open to the Officer in-charge of N.M.Joshi Marg
Police Station to conduct preliminary inquiry before naming the said police
officials from Andhra Pradesh as accused. But that inquiry will have to be
22 wp1357.06
completed expeditiously keeping in mind the dictum of the Full Bench of
this Court in Sandeep Rammilan Shukla (supra).
16. Reverting to the relief prayed by the petitioner of issuing direction to
respondent No.2 to conduct inquiry and assign investigation to third agency
other than respondent No.3, considering the fact that the cause of action for
filing this Petition had arisen long back consequent to non-registration of
FIR by respondent No.3 inspite of the written complaint sent by the
petitioner on 10th June, 2006; and in all probability, the respondent No.3
must have been transferred to some other police station/unit. That relief is
worked out. More over, it is not the case of the petitioner that all the police
officials of N.M.Joshi Marg Police Station were biased against him or hand
in-glove with the police team who had arrived from Andhra Pradesh. Thus
understood, inquiry/investigation of the complaint made by the petitioner
can be undertaken by the police officials attached to N.M.Joshi Marg Police
Station. However, as serous allegations are made against the police officials
of State of Andhra Pradesh, it would be appropriate that the
inquiry/investigation is conducted by a Senior Police Official not below the
rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police. Indeed, if the petitioner has any
grievance about the manner in which that inquiry/investigation is conducted
23 wp1357.06
by the concerned police official, he would be free to pursue appropriate
remedy for seeking direction to transfer of investigation to some
independent agency. Refusal to grant relief in terms of prayer clause (c) of
the present Petition in its entirety therefore will not come in the way of the
petitioner to pursue that remedy.
17. In view of the above, the Petition partly succeeds. We direct that the
written complaint dated 10th June, 2006 be entrusted to Assistant
Commissioner of Police attached to N.M.Joshi Marg Police Station who
may straight away cause to register FIR or conduct preliminary inquiry
before registering the FIR. The preliminary inquiry, however, shall be
completed expeditiously keeping in mind the observations of this Court in
Sandeep Rammilan Shukla (supra) and to proceed in the matter in
accordance with law. In case, the Assistant Commissioner of Police causes
to register the FIR, he shall thereafter take all necessary steps as may be
warranted in accordance with law.
18. Petition disposed of on the above terms.
(P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)
