VIJAYPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present C482 application, applicant has challenged the order dtd. 2/7/2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Second in application No. 14 of 2021 Vijaypal Singh Vs. Guddi and Others, under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C., as well as the order dtd. 22/3/2022 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, District Haridwar in Revision No. 189 of 2021 Vijaypal Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, whereby, the said revision was dismissed.

(2.) The facts in the nutshell are that the applicant was peacefully operating a garments shop under the tenancy of respondent No. 4; the applicant with his family was out of station to participate in a family function and when returned on 7/2/2021, they came to know that the respondent No. 4 and her family members had encroached the shop of applicant into their house by constructing a cemented wall in place of the opening of the shop and all the garment material in the said shop was missing. When applicant talked to the respondent No. 4 and her family members regarding the aforesaid incident, they did not talk to the applicant and started giving threats of dire consequences to the applicant and his family. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 and her family members lodged a false and frivolous FIR against the whole family of applicant. Police lodged FIR against Nitin Chauhan-son, Rajbala Chauhan-wife and Meenu Chauhan-daughter, under Ss. 232, 452, 504 and 506 IPC, but straight forwardedly refused to lodge FIR against the private respondents in a very cursory manner, while the applicant informed the police earlier regarding the whole incident. Then, the applicant forwarded an application to Station House Officer, Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar, Human Rights Commission and D.G.P. Dehradun by the registered post, but, no action was taken against the respondents. After inaction on the part of respondent authorities, the applicant moved an application under Sec. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the concerned learned Judicial Magistrate Second, but the same was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 2/7/2021 on the ground that the matter is purely of civil nature. It was also observed that some civil litigation are pending between the parties in Court. Thereafter, the applicant preferred a revision bearing Revision No. 189 of 2021 Vijaypal Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, against the aforesaid order dtd. 2/7/2021 before the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, but, it too was dismissed vide judgment and order dtd. 22/3/2022 having relied upon the grounds of dismissal of the learned Judicial Magistrate Second. Thus, the applicant is before this Court by challenging the aforesaid impugned orders.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the police authority had not investigated the whole matter and without any proper investigation and without any evidence on record, they have not registered the FIR of the applicant against the private respondents. The police authorities are completely silent and supporting the private respondents despite the fact that the cognizable offence has been committed and as per the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumar Vs. Government of U.P. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1; (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524, the police authorities are bound to register the FIR against the private respondents for such forgery which has been committed against the petitioner. He also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1099 of 2020 Ashish Bhargava Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, in which it was observed that "Right to get speedy justice is a fundamental right of every citizen as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The purpose of lodging the First Information Report in a cognizable offence is to investigate the matter as the First Information Report has not been lodged in the matter, no question arises of any investigation. Non registration of the FIR rendered the petitioner remediless which is violation of fundamental right of a citizen as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon and others v. Home Secretary State of Bihar, Patna. FIR is the basis of launching a just and proper investigation in the matter. Since the FIR has not been registered, one cannot presume that there will be proper dispensation of justice to the aggrieved person. Violation of fundamental right of a citizen gives an authority to this Court to pass appropriate orders to secure the ends of justice. Since the authorities failed to discharge their mandatory obligation of registering the First Information Report and the learned Magistrate also did not entertain the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the petitioner cannot be left remediless. Non registration of the FIR in a cognizable offence amounts to dereliction of duty on the part of the Officer In-charge of concerned Police Station. Non registration of the FIR, promptly, is fatal and delay in registering the FIR would cause injustice to the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, it would be apt to note here that the private respondents are not necessary to be heard at this stage."