Nitin Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 10274 MP

                                   1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT JABALPUR
                                BEFORE
                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
                           ON THE 29th OF JULY, 2022

                   WRIT PETITION No. 14388 of 2022

        Between:-
        NITIN KUMAR S/O SHRI VINOD KUMAR, AGED
        ABOUT       30       YEARS, OCCUPATION:
        BUSINESSMAN, R/O VILLAGE MOHGAUN, P.S.
        KEWLARI,   DISTRICT    SEONI   (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

                                                                 .....PETITIONER
        (BY SHRI SOURABH SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

        AND

1.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
        THE   SECRETARY  HOME    DEPARTMENT
        VALLABH   BHAWAN   BHOPAL   (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

2.      THE    STATION   HOUSE   OFFICER POLICE
        HEAD QUARTER S POLICE STATION OMATI
        ,DISTRICT    JABALPUR  (M.P)   (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

3.      SHRI S.K.RAJAK SUB INSPECTOR PRESENTLY
        POSTED AT POLICE STATION OMATI DISTRICT
        JABALPUR (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
        (BY SHRI PUNIT SHROTI, PANEL LAWYER)

      This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                    ORDER

By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is raising grievance in respect of action taken by the police registering an FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against

him.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the police may proceed further under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. only when the information is received in respect of cognizable offence. He submits that if information is received in respect of Section 154 then investigation has to be done in accordance with the provision of Section 156(1) of Cr.P.C. He also submits that here the offence is non- cognizable, therefore, FIR could not have been registered under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. He therefore, submits that the action of police authority registering the FIR under Section 154 and investigating the matter as per Section 155(2) is contrary to law, therefore, the same be set aside.

Shri Punit Shroti, learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand submits that it is only an information given to the police and therefore, at initial stage FIR is registered only under Section 154 and after making enquiry and investigation and the police after coming to a conclusion that the offence is of cognizable nature or non-cognizable nature thereafter proceed further. He submits that the guidelines for making an enquiry or investigation has been laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. The guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in respect of registration of FIR are as under:-

"120.1. 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.

120.02. 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."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 parties being State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajanlal & ors. saying that the Supreme Court in the said case has very clearly laid down that if offence is non-cognizable then FIR cannot be registered under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and police should proceed under Section 152 of the Code.

However, that stage is yet to come and only after making inquiry, police may reach to a conclusion whether offence is cognizable or non-cognizable.

In view of the aforesaid, the petition is misconceived and even otherwise it does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner at this stage. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the same. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE ac/-

ANIL CHOUDHARY 2022.08.02 10:40:50 +05'30'