LAXMINARAYAN GUPTA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The vexed question of law ?whether the police is under a statutory obligation to register FIR on the basis of a complaint made/information given by a citizen disclosing cognizable offence(s) and to take up the investigation or it has any discretion to make preliminary inquiry into the veracity and correctness of the allegations made in the complaint and not to register the FIR? has once again arisen in these two petitions.

(2.) In both the petitions, the grievance of the petitioner is that no action was taken by the police on his complaints dated 3.1.2005 and 3.8.2005 addressed to SHO, P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur followed by reminders dated 6.1.2005 and 7.8.2005 issued to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (South). In the complaint dated 3.1.2005 the petitioner had alleged that Mr.Bajaj husband of Ms.Urvashi Bajaj, owner of House No.B-59, South Extension, Part-I forcibly entered into his (complainant's) residence at IInd floor of B-59, South Extension, Part-I occupied by him as a tenant and criminally intimidated him and annoyed him and asked his mason and labours to throw his luggage here and there and then threatened to hurt him and kill if he objected to their behaviour. Mr.Bajaj then asked the mason to build a tight cover of cement over his water motor in such a way that the motor was rendered unworkable. Mr.Bajaj then broke the door and removed the same giving free access to assailant or thief to enter and kill him or destroy his property. He also complained that in the past also Mr.Bajaj had made the staircase dark by painting the doors with black colour and putting obstructions in order to intimidate him. The petitioner accordingly apprehended danger to safety of his life and property. In the second complaint dated 3.8.2005 the petitioner alleged that during the preceding night, he suffered severe chest pain and wanted to attend medical emergency of AIIMS, but was surprised to find that the exit door of the house was locked deliberately and duplicate key was not given to him despite the court's order to the SHO that the passage of the petitioner should not be obstructed. It was also alleged that a guest house was being illegally run on the ground floor and the first floor of the said house and when he gave a call bell to the servants for opening the lock, they did not deliberately respond and, therefore, the petitioner was compelled to contact the PCR Van, which reached the spot but despite the loud siren of the PCR, the door was not opened. Afterwards the PCR officials got the door opened from the servants who admitted that the door was deliberately closed by them under the instructions of Mr.Khushhal Bajaj and Ms.Urvashi Bajaj, owner of the house. In this complaint he made a reference of the incident of 3.1.2005 as well and asked the concerned SHO to register a case and take up the investigation.

(3.) Notice on the petitions were issued to the respondent-State and the concerned police authorities who are represented through standing counsel, Government of NCT of Delhi. Separate status reports have been filed in both the petitions. The status report filed in W.P.(Crl.). 470/2005 admits the receipt of complaint from the petitioner and proceeds to state that on the basis of the said complaint enquiries were made and it was revealed that the premises No.B- 59, NDSE Part-I is owned by Sh.Kaushal Bajaj and the petitioner is residing on the IInd floor of the said premises as a tenant since 1979. On 25th and 26th December 2004 Mr.Bajaj got some repair work done on the roof of the IInd floor with the consent of the petitioner as there was seepage in the premises and as no cognizable offence was found to have been committed, the complaint was filed. The allegations made by the petitioner about inaction on the part of the local police are denied.