JARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks direction from this court for the registration of an offence on the basis of information given by him to the Police Station. His grievance is that the accused had committed an offence under Sections 440, 447, 506, 148 and 149 IPC. According to him, he has submitted a written application Annexure P-4 to the SHO Police Station, Kurali, but he did not register the offence though cognizable offence was revealed. He, therefore, seeks direction from this Court to the police for registration of the offence and investigation. According to him, Police was under obligation to register a case under Section 154 Cr.P.C. if the information pertains to a cognizable offence. He relied on the decision of Shanti Sarup v. State, 1995(1) CLR 488 in which a Single Bench of this Court directed the police to register an offence under Sections 302 and 366 IPC. The same view was expressed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in case of Kuldip Singh v. State, 1994(2) RCR 498. The counsel has also relied on the observations in a case of State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, 1991(1) RCR 383 : AIR 1992 SC 604. In the case of Ch. Bhajan Lal, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that it was the duty of a police officer to register a case if the information pertains to a cognizable offence. However, those observations should be considered in the light of the factual position arising in that case. In that case, on information given to the police, a case was registered against Ch. Bhajan Lal who was then the Chief Minister of Haryana. Thereupon Ch. Bhajan Lal filed a petition in the High Court and sought the quashing of the FIR on the ground that the police should not have registered the case unless they undertake preliminary enquiry and satisfy themselves that there is sufficient material to proceed. The High Court accepted that submission and quashed the FIR and further imposed penalty on the police officer who had undertaken the investigation in that case. In the set of these circumstances, the matter had gone to the Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court the primary question was whether the police officer, or the complainant, committed any mistake in registering the case and starting investigation. In that context their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that on getting the information regarding a cognizable offence, the police officer was under obligation to register a case. On this premise their Lordships were of the view that the complainant and the police officer in that case did not commit any offence by registering the case on information which revealed a cognizable offence; and, therefore, they were not liable to be penalised for having acted under the provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C. On that reasoning, the Supreme Court quashed the order of penalty imposed on the complainant and the police officer. On the same reasoning the Supreme Court also quashed the order of the High Court by which the FIR was quashed. The only portion of the investigation which pertained to investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act was quashed on the ground that investigation was by an officer who was not authorised to undertake the investigation. Therefore, on proper reading of the case of Ch. Bhajan Lal, it may appear that the observations made by their Lordships were totally in a different context. Undoubtedly, a police officer who fails in performing his duty to register a case on the information supplied to him commits a lapse. For that lapse he is liable to be separately dealt with. The question, however, remains as to what remedy is available to the complainant in such a situation ? The complainant, if so advised, may proceed against the erring police officer, and, may be, even departmental proceedings can be undertaken against the erring police officer who fails to register an offence on getting information regarding cognizable offence. That is altogether in a different aspect. The case of Ch. Bhajan Lal do not lay down the law that in each and every case the High Court should issue a direction to the police for registration of an offence. In those cases in respect of which it can be said that the complainant could have very well adopted alternative efficacious remedy by filing a complaint in an appropriate Court, the complainant may be advised to adopt that remedy. For that purpose he need not rush to the High Court for exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C. The other two cases, namely, the case of Kuldip Singh (supra) and the case of Shanti Sarup (supra) also does not lay down a law that the complainant cannot be directed to avail an alternative remedy by way of filing complaint in an appropriate Court.

(2.) IN this case, on the submission by the complainant that police had not registered a case and thereby indicated total non-cooperation, it obviously appears rather absurd that the complainant now seeks direction from this Court to the police for investigation though he has lost faith in the police, as per his submissions. On the contrary, the complainant would find it convenient and beneficial if in such cases he files a complaint in the appropriate Court, if so advised. In that case the Court would be in a position to undertake investigation or enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. In that case that Court will have complete control over the progress of the investigation; and it would be possible for that Court to pass necessary orders for the proper and speedy investigation. If the Court finds that the police is not investigating the case properly, it would be possible for him to entrust investigation or enquiry to some other agency as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.P.C. With these observations, petition is dismissed.