KATTERI MOIDEEN KUTTY HAJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal admitted. Notice made returnable forthwith. Learned Government Pleader waives service on behalf of the respondents. By consent, appeal called out for hearing and heard.

(2.) The appellant made a complaint in writing dated 4.8.2001 to the Circle Inspector of Police, Thenjipalam alleging that a Tata Benz lorry bearing No. KL 10A 5740 had been stolen by somebody on 25.6.2001 when he was away in Mumbai for business and his wife was admitted for delivery in a hospital. This complaint of the appellant was not even registered by the Police Station concerned. Hence, the appellant moved O.P. No. 25152 of 2001 which has been dismissed summarily on the statement of the 4th respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, Thenjipalam Police Station, that the vehicle had been repossessed by the Financier.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that, as long as an information lodged before the police station indicates an offence which is cognizable, the police officer concerned has no discretion to refuse cognizance of the offence and register it in the concerned register on the ground that he is satisfied that it is not a crime. The judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal ( AIR 1992 SC 604 ) is cited in support. The Supreme Court in Para.30 of this judgment observed that at the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence in compliance with the mandate of S.154(1) of the Code, the concerned police officer cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information, laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. On the other hand, the officer in charge of a police station is statutorily obliged to register a case and then to proceed with the investigation if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under S.156 of the Code to investigate, subject to the proviso to S.157. In case an officer in charge of a police station refuses to exercise the jurisdiction vested on him and to register a case on the information of a cognizable offence reported and thereby violates the statutory duty cast upon him, the person aggrieved by such refusal can send the substance of the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned, who if satisfied that the information forwarded to him discloses a cognizable offence, should either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him in the manner provided by sub-s. (3) of S.154 of the Code.