Smt. Shanti Devi And Anr. vs The State
2002 Latest Caselaw 380 Del

JUDGMENT

Khan, J.

1. It was on 22.8.2001 that son of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 were riding a motorcycle on Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. One Traffic Zonal Officer ASI Dharam Pal allegedly caught hold of the handle of motorcycle and also the hands of petitioner No. 2 and as a result, both riders fell down and sustained grievous injuries. They were admitted to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. While son of petitioner No. 1 succumbed to injuries, petitioner No. 2 survived. The brother of the deceased lodged complaints with Police Commissioner and other authorities but no action was allegedly taken in the matter. On the contrary, FIR No. 199/2001 was registered under Section 279/333 IPC at PS D.B.G. Road against two riders.

2. Petitioners' grievance is that even as their complaint for registration of FIR against Traffic Officer had gone abegging, SHO PS D.B.G. Road had threatened them to compromise the matter or face dire consequences. They were now being harassed and mentally tortured by the police for pursuing their case. It is accordingly prayed that SHO PS D.B.G. Road be directed to register a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder against ASI Dharam Pal and counter FIR No. 199/01 lodged on his complaint be quashed.

3. Status report filed on behalf of respondent says that FIR No. 199/01 was registered on the statement of ASI Dharam Pal. Petitioners' complaints are admitted to have been received and examined by the Public Grievance Cell of Central District Police but found without any substance. It is denied that the concerned SHO had extended any threats to petitioners for any compromise.

4. Petitioners have filed a rejoinder repelling the stand of respondent. They have also pleaded their ignorance about the inquiry by Public Grievance Cell and have reiterated their charge against the SHO concerned of putting pressure on them for a compromise and harassing them.

5. It is a beaten track that if an information is laid before an officer or a police station, he is saddled with duty to enter it in the prescribed form and register a case and then to conduct an investigation into the allegations made. Though he can make some inquiry as to the commission of a cognizable offence but he can't examine the credibility, correctness or reliability of the accusations made in the complaint. so long as the complaint is not uncertain and it is not entertaining any doubt on the commission of any cognizable offence he has no option but to register the FIR on the complaint where the facts narrated laid a foundation for making out a cognizable offence.

6. In this conspectus it remained to be seen how petitioners' complaint was handled and treated. There is no dispute that it had charged ASI Dharam Pal of being instrumental for the fall of two motor cycle riders resulting i n death of one of them and grievous hurt to the other. It could not, therefore, be said that the information put up before the concerned SHO made the commission of a cognizable offence doubtful or that it was vague or uncertain as to warrant no action in the matter. Respondents' stand that petitioners' complaint was examined by Public Grievance Cell and was found devoid of any substance is wholly misconceived and irrelevant.

7. It is not understandable how the inquiry by that Cell would justify the non-registration of a case on the petitioners' complaint which otherwise indicated commission of a cognizable offence irrespective of the correctness of the accusations. Such an inquiry by any forum of police, it must be under-scored, had no such sanctity in the eyes of law. It indeed fell outside the scope and scheme of Chapters XII and XIV of Cr.P.C.

8. It requires to be made clear at this stage that a police officer was not competent to conduct any investigation of sorts on the complaint or to refer it to any forum for testing its veracity or correctness or substance before entering it in prescribed form and registering a case. Or else, it would tantamount to putting the cart before the horse, because the registration of FIR had to precede the investigation and not the vice versa.

9. We feel convinced that concerned SHO had failed in the discharge of his duties to register the FIR against ASI Dharam Pal on petitioners' complaint. This, therefore, appears to us to be a fit case in which he should be directed to register a case under appropriate sections of IPC. The petitioners may file a fresh copy of complaint before him if it was not borne by police station records. The concerned SHO is further directed to hand over the record of this and also of rival FIR No. 199/2001 to Joint Commissioner, in charge Crime Branch of Delhi Police for further investigation which shall be concluded expeditiously in both FIRs under his personal supervision.

10. Petition is disposed of accordingly.