Shri G.C. Nautiyal And Ors. vs State And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 365 Del

JUDGMENT

Khan, (J)

1. Petitioners are officials of Excise Department and R-4 is a factory owner. Both sides had lodged complaints with R-3 who registered an FIR on R-4's complaint but failed to do so on petitioner's one. Petitioners have now filed this petition praying for a similar treatment.

2. It all seems to have started when R-4's factory unit along with some other units was identified for evasion of central excise duty. Petitioners formed into a Preventive team to conduct its check/inspection. They claim that they equipped by proper authorisation in terms of their departmental circular dated 18.12.1992, entered R-4's factory premises and disclosed their identity by showing their identity cards but R-4 barged in and shouted at them and threatened to shot them. He refused to listen to them and instead made telephone calls to some police officials and other persons. Later police arrived on the scene, checked their identity cards, took them to Jahangir Puri Police Station and detained them there from 3 PM to 6 PM. At this stage, they made a written complaint to R-3 alleging obstruction in the discharge of their duty by R-4 upon which their statements were recorded and they were released and assured that action would be taken in the matter. But next day, they found it to their surprise and shock that R-3 had taken cognizance of factory owner's complaint and registered FIR No.156/99 under Sections 415/34 IPC against them and had also sought sanction for their prosecution, but had failed to take any action on their complaint. Upon this, their Assistant Commissioner contracted ACP Sandhu on 23.3.1999 and had also addressed a letter to R-3 and Police Commissioner also on 24.3.1999 for registration of a case but in vain. No reply was given by the police authorities to these communications and no information sought from them for grating sanction of prosecution furnished. They accordingly pray that R-3 be directed to register a case against R-4 on their complaint and investigation in R-4's FIR No. 156/99 be put on hold till appropriate investigation was made in their case.

3. R-3 has filed a status report giving the police version of the incident. It is claimed that two policemen had gone on the spot where R-4 had complained to them about petitioner's unauthorised entry and their action in searching files, etc. without disclosing their identity and the demand of Rs.2 lacs made to him. A complaint was received from R-4 on which a statement was recorded and FIR No. 156/99 registered under Sections 415/34 IPC. It is explained that after petitioner had been brought to the police station, it was around 5.40 PM that one Excise Inspector Chand Singh had handed over the authorisation letter of Assistant Commissioner Mihir Kumar dated 23.3.1999 to them which did not carry any official stamp. Later petitioner No.1 submitted a complaint alleging obstruction in the discharge of official duty in which a preliminary inquiry was conducted and it was found to be an after-thought. Hence, no case was registered on this.

4. By court order dated 21.11.2001, DCP (NW) was asked to conduct an inquiry into the matter. He has stated in his report that petitioners had followed an improper procedure for raiding R-4's factory premises. They had neither shown identity cards nor any authorisation letter from Assistant Collector which was later submitted in the police station on a plain paper and which was an after-thought. It is further held by him that even if factory owner was suspected of evading taxes, petitioners should have taken all precautions to avoid any subsequent allegation and even if they were obstructed in the discharge if their duty, they could not be given any benefit as they had conducted this 'improperly'.

5. Petitioner's case is that R-3 was bound to register a case on their information and that he had no choice in the mater, more so when he had done so on the `complaint of R-4 and having ignored it, he had failed to discharge his statutory duty.

6. It is well settled that once an information is laid before a police officer in accordance with the requirements of Section 154(1) Cr.P.C., he is required to enter it in a prescribed from and registered a case . He can't refuse to do so on the ground that the information given to him was not credible or trustworthy because worth and reasonableness of that information was not a condition precedent for lodging an FIR so long as it prime facie disclosed commission of a cognizable offence. It the information given is not clear or creates a doubt as to if cognizable offence is disclosed , some inquiry can proceed before registration of the case. It is true that the police officer had a statutory right under Section 156 Cr.P.C. to investigate into any cognizable offence and it was their domain to do so but he was to confine himself within parameters of law. He could not assume the role of a court to sit on judgment on the credibility or reasonableness of the information received from a complainant. It was only after the registration of FIR and commencement of investigation that he had options to satisfy himself whether he suspected commission of an offence and whether there was a ground for entering into investigation in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, going by the scheme and script of provisions of Chapter XII and other relevent provisions, a police officer was obliged to enter the information in prescribed form and to register a case notwithstanding the reasonableness or authenticity or credibility of such information. It was then open to him either to proceed with the investigation or to dispence with it depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. Though all this is well-established it would still be advantageous to quote from the celebrated Supreme Court judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal :- "If any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is a say, to register a case on the basis of such information 'Reasonableness' or 'credibility' of the said information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. The police should not refuse to record an information relating to the commision of a cognizable offence and to register a case thereon on the ground that he is not satisfied with the reasonableness or credibility of the information. In Section 154(1) the Legislature in its collective wisdom has carefully and cautiously used the expression 'information' without qualifying the as in Section 41(1)(a) or (g) of the Code wherein the expressions 'reasonable complaint' and 'credible information' are used."

8. In this background, all that remained to be seen was whether R-3 had failed to discharge his statutory duty to register an FIR on petitioner's complaint and whether a direction could be issued to him to do so in the present case.

9. There is no dispute that petitioners are Government servants and officers of the Excise Department and enjoyed the power to inspect and check the factory premises of R-4 for any suspected tax evation. Even if it was assumed that they did not possess any letter of authorisation from Assistant Collector, it could not dislodge the basis of their complaint alleging obstruction in the discharge of their duty. No was it for R-3 to make it a condition precedent for registration of a case. For him, it was a simple case of two rival complaints, one made by petitioners and the other by R-4 and he was required under Section 154(1) to enter the substance of these complaints in the prescribed from and to register a case. It is surprising that he should have done it in one case and refused to do it in the other.

10. What is worse is that DCP (NW) had compounded the mistake by assuming the role of a court and deciding the case on his own in his report. He had exceeded his brief by returning finding and holding the conduct of petitioners as 'improper'. Even though he was asked to inquire into the matter, but that did not and would not authorise him to pass a judgment on the merits of petitioner's complaint to justify R-3's inaction. His remark that no benefit couls be given to petitioners because of their alleged impropriety in going for an inspection of R-4's factory premises only betrays his ignorance about the requirement of law in the matter. Registration of a case on the information received is a statutory duty cast on a police officer and does not involve conferment of any benefit or otherwise on the complaint.

11. Therefore, all things concerned, we hold that R-3 had failed in discharge of his duty in entering substance of petitioners' complaint in the prescribed form and registering a case and so had DCP (NW) exceeded his jurisdiction and brief to return a judgment on the merit of this complaint.

12. R-3 is accordingly directed to register a case on petitioners' complaint under appropriate offences and forward it to Joint Commissioner, Crime Branch along with R-4's FIR No. 156/99 for investigation by the Crime Branch in the matter. Joint Commissioner, Crime Branch is directed to supervise the investigation in both cases and take appropriate follw-up action in the matter within four months from receipt of this order.