Jharkhand High Court
Pooja Giri vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 15 September, 2023
1 W.P. (Cr.) No. 12 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 12 of 2023
Pooja Giri ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi
3. Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, District- West
Singhbhum
5. Officer Incharge, Sadar Police Station, Chaibasa, District- West
Singhbhum ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate
Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate
Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.C. Sinha, A.C. to G.A.-III
-----
07/15.09.2023 Heard Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.C.
Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
2. This petition has been filed for direction upon the respondents to
register FIR on the complaint made by the petitioner.
3. Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
elder brother of the petitioner, namely, Uma Shankar Giri had lodged
Chakradharpur P.S. Case No.131 of 2022 under Sections 302 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of
the Explosive Substance Act regarding murder of one of the brother of the
petitioner, namely, Kamal Dev Giri, on 14.11.2022 against unknown accused
persons. He further submits that the petitioner and her family members
along with residents of Chakradharpur prayed to the Investigating Authority
for Narco Analysis Test of arrested accused persons and for that a
representation was given to the Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum
at Chaibasa on 13.12.2022, which was duly received by Chakradharpur
Police Station, contained in Annexure-1 of the petition. He submits that on
26.12.2022, a fresh representation was filed by the petitioner before the
Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, which was also duly
received by his office, contained in Annexure-2 of the petition. He further
submits that the information regarding peaceful demonstration was given to
the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, Superintendent of
Police, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa and Deputy Superintendent of Police,
West Singhbhum at Chaibasa on 29.12.2022, which was duly received by
their offices. On 29.12.2022, detailed information was given to the Deputy
Commissioner, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, which was duly received by his
office. On 29.12.2022, the petitioner and her family members were sitting
outside the office of the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum at
Chaibasa for peaceful demonstration. He submits that suddenly In-charge of
Sadar Police Station, namely, Niranjan Tiwari came to the petitioner and her
family members and started abusing them and had also brutally assaulted
the petitioner and her brother namely Uma Shankar Giri and in connection
to that, the petitioner gave written information to the Officer In-charge,
Sadar Police Station, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa on 29.12.2022 at 07:45
p.m. regarding illegal act of the In-charge, Sadar Police Station, however, no
FIR was registered by the said police station against the erring police
official, contained in Annexure-5 of the petition. He also submits that on the
given date, the petitioner was brutally assaulted by the In-charge, Sadar
Police Station, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa and she was referred to the
Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa, contained in Annexure-6 of the petition. The Chief
Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa, after examining the petitioner, has
prepared a medical report dated 29.12.2022 and he has found eight
different injuries on the body of the petitioner, contained in Annexure-7 of
the petition. He submits that the petitioner has duly represented again to
the Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa regarding abuse
and assault being made by the said Niranjan Tiwari, In-charge, Sadar Police
Station, Chaibasa, contained in Annexure-8 of the petition. He submits that
in spite of the above facts where the allegations are there of brutal assault
upon the petitioner and others and medical report contained in Annexure-7
of the Government medical officer is also there and the petitioner was
examined pursuant to the reference made by the police itself, however, no
FIR has been registered. He submits that this all has happened overlooking
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari
v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others , reported in (2014) 2
SCC 1.
4. On the other hand, Mr. P.C. Sinha, learned counsel for the
respondent-State submits that the FIR with regard to murder of the
petitioner's brother has already been registered, which is being investigated
and in view of that, the entire act will come in the investigation of that case.
He further submits that the petitioner and others were protesting and they
have sustained injuries in course of such protest and that is why, the FIR
has not been registered. He also submits that the petitioner is having
alternative remedy.
5. In view of the above facts and looking into the documents brought on
record, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has received eight different
injuries on her body. The allegations of brutal assault are made against
none other than the police official of the said district. Further, the said
medical report was also there pursuant to the reference made by the police
for examination of the petitioner. The question remains when such injuries
are there, whether the action of the police and district administration can be
justified by way of not registering the FIR against the named person or not,
the answer is already there in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari (supra). In the said judgment, following
directions have been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 120
of the said judgment:
"120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section
154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a
cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in
such a situation.
120.2. If the information received does not disclose a
cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a
preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain
whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases
where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a
copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first
informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must
disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not
proceeding further.
120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering
offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be
taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if
information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the
veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to
ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable
offence.
120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary
inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which
preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in
initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months'
delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily
explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all
conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
120.7. While ensuring and protecting the rights of the
accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be
made time-bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days.
The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected
in the General Diary entry.
120.8. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is
the record of all information received in a police station, we
direct that all information relating to cognizable offences,
whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an
inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the
said diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry
must also be reflected, as mentioned above."
6. In view of the above directions, once the offence of cognizable nature
is there, the police officer is bound to register an FIR when complaint
discloses cognizable offence.
7. The complaint of an offence was filed on 29.12.2022, contained in
Annexure-5 of the petition and if the FIR is not registered till date, it is
impermissible and it would also amount to dereliction of duty, upon the
police officer who has not complied the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
8. This is not a single case. There are many cases of such nature, which
have been examined by this Court in several writ petitions and appropriate
directions have also been issued. This is unfortunate that a citizen has been
compelled to move before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for registration of the FIR and such a direction is already there in view
of the judgment passed in Lalita Kumari (supra).
9. There is no doubt that the petitioner is having alternative remedy, but
looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case as disclosed in
the petition, the Court finds that already much time has lapsed and to
further delay the matter, unnecessarily the evidence may be further diluted.
Prima facie, cognizable offence is there and in view of the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari (supra), the FIR has not
been registered by the police. It is further well settled that in exceptional
circumstances when alternative remedy is there, the writ jurisdiction power
can be exercised by the High Court and exceptional case has been made
out in the present case and that is why, the argument of Mr. P.C. Sinha,
learned counsel for the State with regard to availability of alternative
remedy to the petitioner, is not being accepted by this Court.
10. In view of the above, the Director General of Police, State of
Jharkhand, Ranchi and the Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum at
Chaibasa are directed to register an FIR forthwith.
11. The Director General of Police, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi is further
directed to issue necessary Circular/SOP to all Station House Officers in
respect of the directions issued in Lalita Kumari's case at paragraph 120 of
the judgment, which has already been produced hereinabove, with
instructions to follow them scrupulously and if necessary, the Director
General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi may forward the said Circular/SOP in
translated copy of the said judgment in Hindi and other languages so that
the police officers are able to understand the judgment. The Director
General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi may also indicate that disciplinary
proceedings will be initiated against the police officers, who will not follow
the Circular/SOP in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Lalita Kumari (supra).
12. So far as registration of the FIR is concerned, that will be considered
as per the direction issued hereinabove. Further, the direction shall be
complied by the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi within a
period of two weeks.
13. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.
14. Pending I.A., if any, is also disposed of.
15. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
complaint filed by the petitioner and investigation shall be conducted
independently, in accordance with law.
16. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Director General of
Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum at
Chaibasa and Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/ A.F.R.
