LAXMI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE seminal issue that emanates in this intra court appeal preferred under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (for brevity 'the Act') is whether the Officer In -charge of the Police Station or any other person in charge is bound to register an F.I.R. lodged under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code'), if the F.I.R. discloses a cognizable offence or has the option not to register it by giving a zero number and proceed with an inquiry. We must, at the outset state, that is the principal and fundamental question, though Mr.P.N.Dubey, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State would like to propone that if the First Information Report is not registered and no action is taken the aggrieved party can take steps under Section 200 of the Code by lodging a complaint before the concerned magistrate. It is apposite to state, to avoid any kind of maze, there can be no scintilla of doubt when the Police authorities do not take any action a private complaint can be filed before the appropriate Court of law but, a significant and fertile one, whether the Officer In -charge would not register an F.I.R. and proceed to investigate into the matter and thereafter, if satisfied, would register/allot a crime number.

(2.) THE facts which are essential to be stated are that Smt.Pushpa Sahu, respondent No.6, was working in the school of the petitioner, Smt.Laxmi Sharma, Director, Indira High School. Madhotal, Jabalpur, as a clerk -cum -cashier and she did not deposit the fees collected from the students for the months of March to May, 2006 in the bank account of the school. As the money was not accounted for and there was embezzlement, the writ petitioner lodged reports with the Station House Officer, Gohalpur, Jabalpur on 10.5.2006, 22.5.2006 and 12.10.2006 but despite the same the respondent No.5 did not register a case against her. As the F.I.R. was not registered the writ petitioner invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a command to the Station House Officer to register an offence as it is a cognizable one and proceed as per law. As is evincible, the learned Single Judge placing reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union (Reg.) Vs. Union of India,, (1996) 1 SCC 582 and Minu Kumar and another Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2006) 4 SCC 369 came to hold that the writ petition should not be entertained as the petitioner has a remedy for making a complaint under Section 200 of the Code before the competent magistrate, and being of such view dismissed the writ petition.

(3.) QUESTIONING the correctness and faultlessness of the order passed by the learned single Judge, Mr. K.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it was imperative on the part of the Officer In -charge to accept the F.I.R., if the conditions precedent are satisfied to register a case and thereafter proceed to investigate, but they cannot give a zero number and not register the offence. Learned counsel submitted that this practice is not in consonance with the spirit of the Code and such a practice creates a dent in the marrows of the faith of the people in the police at large. It is his submission that the filing of private complaint is not the solution of the problem. It is propounded by him that when a cognizable offence is alleged and the F.I.R. reflects the same the Officer In -charge or any one remaining in the charge is bound to register an offence and allot crime number. Mr. P.N. Dubey, learned Dy.Advocate General for the State resisting the aforesaid submissions contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is absolutely impeccable and flawless and hence, and same does not warrant any interference in this intra court appeal. It is proponed by Mr. Dubey that the practice is to give a zero number and thereafter the investigation is taken up, and on being satisfied, a crime is registered. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that in the case at hand it is open to the appellant to lodge a private complaint before the competent magistrate. Section 154(1) of the Code provides for recording of information in cognizable offence. Section 156 deals with police officers powers to investigate into the cognizable case. Section 157 of the Code envisages the procedure for investigation. Section 173 of the Code deals with filing of charge -sheet and Section 190 of the Code lays down the postulate for taking cognizance. It is apposite to reproduce sections 154 and 156: