GURMAIL KAUR Vs. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for both the sides. Contention of the petitioner is that on 15.11.1995 on a message received from respondent 4 herein, her husband Bhola Singh went to village Kaler but was found dead. According to her, she received information about the murder of her husband on 16.11.1995 at 7.00 a.m. The petitioner claims that in spite of her requests made orally to lodge an F.I.R. to the S.H.O., Police Station Sherpur but he has not done so. The petitioner also claims that she along with her father-in-law made a written representation to the S.S.P., Sangrur on 30.12.1995 stating that her husband was murdered by the fourth respondent- Bachan Singh and others. The petitioner claims that since her request to take action on this representation did not bear fruit, she made another written representation to the D.G.P., Punjab (Annexure P-2) dated 21.2.1996 wherein she specifically alleged that her husband had been murdered by respondents Nos. 4 to 6 herein. She had also stated herein that she reported the matter to the S.H.O., Police Station Sherpur and also to the S.S.P., Barnala which again did not evoke any positive action on their part. The petitioner also claims that her father-in-law Sant Singh has also sent a written representation on 26.3.1996 to the D.I.G., Patiala Range for justice but could not succeed in getting the F.I.R. registered. The petitioner has also produced copy of the representation made by her to the S.S.P., Barnala once again implicating respondents 4 to 6 herein for the murder of her husband. The petitioner contends that in spite of her requests and written representations, no F.I.R. has been lodged and has, therefore, approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to register the F.I.R. on the basis of the representations made by her.

(2.) DEPUTY Superintendent of Police, Mahal Kalan who has filed reply on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, has stated in para-15 of his reply that the representation dated 30.12.1995 was duly enquired by him and he found that a case F.I.R. No. 99 dated 16.11.1995 under Sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C. has already been registered on the basis of the statement of Sant Ram, father-in- law of the petitioner but no clue could be found regarding the identity of the alleged culprit. He has also mentioned the names of certain persons who were enquired by the local police, as also the enquiry by the C.I.A. Staff of Patiala. According to the deponent, as no clue could be found about the culprits, a report that the case has been untraced, has also been prepared.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner rightly contends that when four representations have been sent either by the petitioner herself or along with her father-in-law or by her father-in-law alone in some of which the petitioner has specifically stated that respondents 4 to 6 have murdered her husband and in such circumstances where the representations show the commission of a cognizable offence, it is the duty of the police to have registered the F.I.R. and then investigated the case. On the contrary, the police appears to have acted in the reverse direction. Their contention that they have investigated the case, found it to be untraceable and, therefore, have not lodged the F.I.R., is wholly unacceptable. They are bound to register the F.I.R. when there is the commission of a cognizable offence. Therefore, this petition deserves to be allowed.