JASWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -Jaswant Singh presented a complaint to the S.H.O., Police Station Division No. 2, Ludhiana (second respondent herein) against Gurnam Singh and others (annexure P-1) wherein he has stated that he is carrying on business in the part of the property No. B-15, Nirankari Street No. 1, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana, since November, 1979 as a lessee from Balwant Kaur and that on 15.10.1996 at 4.30 p.m., Gurnam Singh and others forcefully entered the said shop, started breaking the walls, damaged the roof by climbing on the machines and also started breaking the wooden ballas of the room. It has also been stated that when Balwant Kaur came to the spot and tried to stop them, she was also threatened with dire consequences. According to this complaint, Gurnam Singh and others had caused loss to the extent of Rs. 40,000/- to the building and the machinery by criminally trespassing into the shop.

(2.) THE petitioner also alleges in this petition that as the police did not take any action, he had sent a representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana (annexure P-2). The petitioner claims that inspite of the fact that the complaint discloses the commission of cognizable offences, the F.I.R. has not been registered. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the S.H.O. (second respondent) to register the FIR.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for both the sides. The allegations in the complaint extracted above prima facie show the commission of cognizable and other offences. Therefore, the police officer who has received the information about the commission of a cognizable offence, has to register the F.I.R. in view of the provisions contained in Section 154 Cr.P.C. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1991(1) R.C.R. 383, clearly supports the contention of the petitioner in this regard. The respondents cannot be heard to say either that they have looked into the matter and found the allegations to be false or that civil proceedings are pending before the Court and, therefore, they will not register the F.I.R. Pending of the civil proceedings has nothing to do with the registration of the FIR when the commission of a cognizable offence is brought to the notice of the police. Similarly existence of the alternative remedy i.e. filing a complaint before the criminal court does not also disentitle the petitioner to the relief prayed for. In view of the provisions contained in Section 154 Cr.P.C. and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sate of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra), the decision in Jagjiwan Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 1987(1) All Instant Judgments 532, holding that the petitioner can be directed to pursue the alternative remedy, will not be of any help to the respondents. Therefore, the second respondent is bound to register the F.I.R. on the basis of the complaint annexure P-1.