G C NAUTIYAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(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. 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 shoot 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-1.56/99 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 contacted 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 granting 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. 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 petitioners 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.

(2.) 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 their 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 of their duty, they could not be given any benefit as they had conducted this 'improperly'. Petitioner's case is that R-3 was bound to register a case on their information and that he had no choice in the matter, 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.

(3.) 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 form and register 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 prima 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 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 spirit of provisions of Chapter XII and other relevant 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 dispense with it depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.