P S AUTOMOBILE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court: The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated July 25, 2006, for admission whereof no step was taken from July 25, 2006, is seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to start a criminal case against the miscreants it named and make necessary investigation.

(2.) Case of the petitioner, a firm, is this. Taking loan from the fifth respondent, a private finance company, it purchased a vehicle. On July 20, 2006 people engaged by the finance company forcibly repossessed the vehicle committing various offences. The driver was made to sign a seizure list. Learning the details of the matter a partner went to the Taratala Police Station to lodge a G.D. entry and/or diary. Since the police refused to enter the information in the General Diary, on July 21, 2006 it sent a complaint to the inspector in charge of the police station. The police did not take any action. The question is whether the High Court should make any order in exercise of power under art. 226 directing the police to take any step in the matter. Counsel for the petitioner has argued as follows. Since the police were under a statutory duty to take action on the basis of the information, there was no need for the petitioner to go to the Magistrate, and the petitioner was entitled to approach the High Court under art. 226 seeking a mandamus commanding the police to take action in the discharge of their statutory duties. The petitioner paying the State tax is entitled to police service of the State, and by inaction the police cannot lead it to the Magistrate where its partner will be required to attend every hearing day if it initiates a case as a complainant. I find no reason to accept the arguments. The petitioner's own case is that it wanted the officer in charge of the police station concerned to enter the information given by it in the General Diary. In view of the petitioner's own case, the petitioner would have been referred to the Magistrate by the officer in charge, because the information could be entered in the General Diary only under s.155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner wanting the officer in charge to enter the information only in the General Diary was not entitled to say that the officer in charge of the police station ought to have registered an FIR and made investigation.

(3.) Even assuming that information given by the petitioner disclosed commission of some cognizable offence by the persons named in the information given in writing, and that the officer in charge of the police station was wrong in deciding not to register an FIR, I am unable to see how the petitioner can avoid the Court of the Magistrate citing its partner's day to day inconvenience and its right to get police service provided by the State.