MITHLESH KUMARI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed for a direction to register a criminal case.

(2.) IT is alleged that the petitioner is daughter of Mota Singh, who had settled in Singapore in 1945 and died on 17.11.1998. The succession mutation was entered on 16.2.2001 in the revenue record in favour of one Deep Kaur, who claimed to be widow of Mota Singh and Manvinder Singh, who claimed to be son of Mota Singh and sanctioned at the instance of Bakhtawar Singh, Gurbax Singh and Gurmail Singh, which amounted to forging to revenue record. On 26.4.2001, the petitioner sent a letter to the SHO asking the SHO to register a case under Sections 420/465/466/468/471 read with Section 120-B IPC against Deep Kaur and others. Since the police did not take any action on written complaint, a complaint was filed in the Court of Magistrate on 21.5.2001, who asked the SHO to investigate the matter and to submit a report dated 3.6.2001 and the SHO submitted a report on the basis of a preliminary enquiry without any investigation stating that the allegations of the petitioner were not credible. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by this Court on 10.8.2001 on the ground that the petitioner had remedy of approaching the Magistrate against the alleged refusal of the police to register the FIR and no interference was called for under Section 482 Cr.P.C. On 16.8.2001, the petitioner filed an application before the Magistrate for a direction for registration of the FIR, which was dismissed on the same day calling upon the complaint to bring preliminary evidence, while observing that no case was made out for a direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., but the Court will consider issuing summons to the accused, if a case is made out from the preliminary evidence of the complainant.

(3.) NOTICE of motion was issued. Reply has been filed by the State justifying non-registration of the FIR and submitting that the Magistrate had called upon the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of her case. It was submitted that Rule 24.4. of the Punjab Police Rules (for short, the PPR) permits the police to enter the substance of information in a station diary and record reasons for suspecting that the offence alleged has not been committed and notify the fact that the case was not proposed to be investigated, but the same is subject to any contrary order of the superior officer. It was explained that under the Punjab Police Rules framed under the Punjab Police Act, 1861 Chapter XXIV deals with procedure for recording of the FIR and while information received was to be entered in the FIR register, if there was a reason to suspect commission of an offence, the information was to be entered in a station diary, if it was suspected that the alleged offence has not been committed. Relevant provisions of Rule 24.1(2) and 24.4(1) of the PPR are extracted below :-