HARPAL SINGH ARORA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to the filing of this petition and the issues that arise for determination are set out in a detailed order passed by this Court on 24th april 2008 the following order which reads as under:

(2.) COUNSEL for the parties addressed arguments today on the question highlighted in the above order dated 28th April 2008. Mr. Tarun Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner refers to a judgment of the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ganesh Dass v. State of Kerala 1996 Crl LJ 612 to contend that the investigation by the police after registering an FIR was entirely in the realm of Section 154 Crpc and that the Magistrate has no power to direct registering of an FIR. Mr. Sharma further submits that the report of enquiry by the CAW Cell in the instant case should be considered to be a report of investigation by the police in terms of Section 173 Crpc and that the learned magistrate ought not to have ignored the said report and proceeded to direct investigation under Section 156 (3) Crpc. He nevertheless does not contest the proposition that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in H. S. Bains v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) 1980 (4) SCC 631 it was open to the learned Magistrate to reject the closure report and proceed with the complaint in terms of Section 200 Crpc i. e. by recording the statement of complainant and taking further steps thereafter in accordance with law.

(3.) MS. Gupta, learned Senior standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the CAW Cell was set up only to provide, at the pre-litigation stage, a facility for exploring the possibility of settling their disputes through mediation with the help of the police. She informs the Court that the caw cell has now been notified as a police station. She submits that although there are no specific provisions in Crpc which contemplate a preliminary enquiry by the police on a complaint by a person aggrieved by the commission of a cognizable offence, certain observations of the Supreme Court in State of haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 implicitly recognize this practice by the police. Ms. Gupta is categorical in her submission that report of the caw cell, prepared after the completion of an enquiry, is not a report of investigation within the meaning of Section 173 Crpc. She nevertheless submits that in a case like the present one where a detailed report of enquiry by the caw Cell was available and taken on record by the learned Magistrate, the latter ought not to issue a direction to the police to investigate a case under Section 156 (3) Crpc. He should apply his mind to the report of the CAW cell and set out even briefly the reasons why he still thinks it necessary to issue a direction for investigation. If after considering he report of the CAW cell the Magistrate is not inclined to order the investigation under Section 156 (3) Crpc he may still decide to proceed under Section 200 Crpc by recording the statement of the complainant and thereafter if necessary direct a limited investigation under section 202 Crpc.