I. LAKRA Vs. PRAKASH JEET JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein seeks a direction commanding the official respondents for registration of first information report (FIR) against respondents No.1 and 2 stating inter alia that they have committed cognizable offence punishable under Sections 457, 380, 294, 420, 467, 471, 385, 461 and 464 of the IPC and despite report, respondents No.3 to 5 are not registering FIR, therefore, a suitable direction be given to respondents No.3 to 5 for registration of FIR and investigation thereupon.

(2.) On instructions, Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General, would submit that the matter has been enquired and on enquiry, it revealed that earlier, the complainant / respondent No.2 herein has let out her house to the petitioner on rent and thereafter, dispute arose between the petitioner and respondents No.1 and 2 with regard to alienation of the suit accommodation and respondents No.1 and 2 are not ready and willing to further give on rent the suit accommodation to the petitioner and therefore dispute has arisen between the parties. No documents have been submitted by both the parties and respondent No.2 has also made a report against the petitioner and that offence is found not to be cognizable under Section 155 of the CrPC and the petitioner has also not cooperated in the investigation, as such, no cognizable offence has been found to have been committed by respondents No.1 and 2. He would further submit that if the petitioner is not satisfied with the action of the police authorities in not taking cognizance of the alleged offence, he has remedy to submit application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate or to file complaint before the jurisdictional criminal Court under Section 200 of the CrPC, as such, the writ petition is not maintainable. He would also submit that it is purely a dispute between landlord and tenant and on the basis of that, no direction can be given for registration of FIR against the private respondents.

(3.) Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the complaint filed by the petitioner clearly and prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offence, therefore, as per the decision laid down by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1, it was imperative for respondents No.3 to 5 to register FIR, but, as they have declined, appropriate writ or direction be issued for registration of FIR.