Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 195 (MP)

Amit Purohit v. State of M. P.

2015-02-13

ALOK VERMA, P.K.JAISWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Verma, J. -- 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 5.3.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.2796/2013 which was modified by the order dated 8.3.2013 in Review Petition No.152/2013 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. The petitioner/appellant is Lawyer practicing at Indore Bench of M.P. High Court. On 27.2.2013, at about 10:30 p.m. while the appellant was going back to Vijay Nagar, where he used to reside, on his bike, his bike collided with another two wheeler, which was being driven by a male and a lady was sitting on the pillion seat of the vehicle. When the appellant raised an objection and advised them to drive the vehicle carefully and slowly, the lady started using abusive language against him. She also pushed him due to which he fell down. Thereafter, he went to police station to lodge a complaint against them where the lady also came to the police station and called hereself as Trainee Sub-Inspector. The driven of the second vehicle was S. S. Raghuvanshi, Sub-Inspector. They again started beating him. The Sub-Inspector S. S. Raghuvanshi removed his shirt and started beating him with kick and fist. His brother Manish Purohit also reached at police station by that time and then he was taken to the bathroom where, golden chain weighing 20 gms was also snatched. They also threw his official files which he was carrying and also snatched his mobile phone. Later on, he came to know that police had registered the FIR against him and subsequently, on 28.3.2013, he filed a report before the Superintendent of Police, Indore, narrating the above facts and requesting therein to take action against said Sub-Inspector S.S. Raghuvanshi and Trainee Sub-Inspector Ms. Jyoti Tiwari under sections 323, 392 and 294 of IPC. 3. When no action was taken on his complaint, the appellant/petitioner filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was registered as Writ Petition No.2796/2013. 4. This writ petition was disposed of by learned Single Judge on 5.3.2013 by issuing the following directions :- “a) The Station House Officer, Vijay Nagar, Police Station, Indore shall register a FIR based upon the report dated 28.2.2013 Annexure P-4, for proceeding ahead under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 4. This writ petition was disposed of by learned Single Judge on 5.3.2013 by issuing the following directions :- “a) The Station House Officer, Vijay Nagar, Police Station, Indore shall register a FIR based upon the report dated 28.2.2013 Annexure P-4, for proceeding ahead under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. b) Crime registered on the basis of the report of the petitioner dated 28.2.2013 as well as the crime registered against the petitioner at Crime No.195/2013 shall be investigated by the Crime Investigation Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh. c) The Additional Director General of Police, (CID), Bhopal, who is the head of the department, Crime Investigation Department shall appoint a Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the Crime No.195/2013 and the FIR which is going to be registered based upon the complaint dated 28.2.2013. Meaning thereby, both the matters shall be investigated by the Crime Investigation Department. d) The Crime Investigation Department after investigating the matter shall be free to take an appropriate action, in accordance with law, keeping in view the statutory provisions as contained under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.” 5. After the aforesaid directions were issued, respondent No.5 Ms. Jyoti Tiwari fearing that the FIR would also registered against he as her name also appears in the report dated 28.2.2013 filed by the present appellant/petitioner. While disposing of the review petition on 8.3.2013 before the learned Single Judge, a statement was made by the learned counsel for the appellant/petition that he never prayed for registration of the FIR against the review petitioner Ms. Jyoti Tiwari. While disposing of the review petition, learned Single Judge taking the above statement of the counsel into consideration on 8.3.2013 further issued the following directions :- “Resultantly, the following may be read as paragraph (e) conjointly with the order dated 5.3.2013 :- “(e) It is clarified that this Court has not directed registration of FIR against Ms. Jyoti Tiwari, Trainee Sub-Inspector of Police and this Court has directed registration of FIR against the respondent No.4, Mr. S.S. Raghuvanshi, Sub-Inspector of Police, Vijay Nagar Police Station, Indore based upon the report dated 28.2.2013 (Annexure P-4).” 6. On 11.12.2014 before this Bench, learned Deputy Advocate General made a statement at bar that no inquiry has been conducted against the respondent No.5. S.S. Raghuvanshi, Sub-Inspector of Police, Vijay Nagar Police Station, Indore based upon the report dated 28.2.2013 (Annexure P-4).” 6. On 11.12.2014 before this Bench, learned Deputy Advocate General made a statement at bar that no inquiry has been conducted against the respondent No.5. This Court observed that learned Single Judge never directed the respondent No.5 not to inquire into the matter. The only direction which was in favour of the respondent No.5 was direction No.(e) as reproduced above. The Court directed learned Deputy Advocate General to submit the report about inquiry, if any, held against respondent No.5 and submit its report within six weeks. In compliance of the direction of the Court, an affidavit was filed on 28.1.2015 by Shri Ajay Jain, City Superintendent of Police, Pardeshipura, Indore, stating therein that no inquiry was conducted against the respondent No.5 and no crime was registered against her because there was no direction of the learned Single Judge of this Court to register the FIR against her. 7. In this factual background, the present appeal is filed praying therein that directions issued on 5.3.2013 and 8.3.2013 may be suitably modified and all the reliefs claimed in the aforesaid writ petition may kindly be granted in favour of the appellant/petitioner. 8. Before finally dealing with the controversy involved in this appeal, it may be mentioned here that in response to the directions issued by learned Single Judge Crime No.253/2013 was registered by Police Station, Vijay Nagar on 19.3.2013 in which it was mentioned that this FIR was being registered only against the Sub-Inspector S. S. Raghuvanshi and not against Trainee Sub-Inspector Jyoti Tiwari. It may also be mentioned that immediately after the incident, Crime No.195/2013 was already registered against the appellant/petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that though, police after investigation submitted final (closure) report before the concerning Magistrate however, he has no grievance against that as he can raise his objection before the concerning Magistrate against such closure report. He only raised an objection against the fact that no action was being taken against respondent No.5 Ms. Jyoti Tiwari, Trainee Sub-Inspector, who was specifically named in his report dated 28.3.2013. 10. Under section 154(1) of CrPC, which the learned Single Judge quoted in the impugned order, it appears that FIR is registered against the cognizable offence and not against the particular person. Jyoti Tiwari, Trainee Sub-Inspector, who was specifically named in his report dated 28.3.2013. 10. Under section 154(1) of CrPC, which the learned Single Judge quoted in the impugned order, it appears that FIR is registered against the cognizable offence and not against the particular person. The provision of section 154 of CrPC may be reproduced below :- “154. Information in cognizable cases :- (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. (2) ............................. (3) ............................. 11. The language used in the section is when police receives an information relating to commission of the cognizable offence. It is apparent therefore, that the FIR is registered when it appears to the police that a cognizable offence has been committed. It is a matter of investigation to establish the criminal liability of the person who actually committed the crime. Therefore, it has two stages. (i) The FIR must show that cognizable offence has been committed the offence. When the FIR shows that cognizable offence is committed though, it does not disclose as to who committed the offence, the police officials are under the statutory obligation under section 154(1) of CrPC to register the crime and also the FIR. According to the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court only when it is doubtful whether a cognizable offence has been committed, the police can conduct a preliminary inquiry and when it is established in such preliminary inquiry that cognizable offence has been committed, the FIR is registered. (ii) Second stage is establishment of criminal liability of persons who are responsible for commission of the offence. 12. In the present case, the report filed by the appellant/petitioner on 28.3.2013 discloses commission of the offence as well as there were names of the offenders mentioned in the report. (ii) Second stage is establishment of criminal liability of persons who are responsible for commission of the offence. 12. In the present case, the report filed by the appellant/petitioner on 28.3.2013 discloses commission of the offence as well as there were names of the offenders mentioned in the report. Now, after investigation it was the duty of the police personnel to file final outcome in the form of final report under section 173 of CrPC. When the investigating officer reaches to the conclusion that no offence is committed on the basis of the evidence gathered then, he files a final (closure) report. In such case, the Magistrate has several options. (i) He can refuse to accept the closure report and take cognizance against the persons whom he thinks were responsible for commission of the offence. (ii) He can direct the police to further investigate the matter and in such case, the investigating officer who further investigates the matter can again resubmit the report to the concerning Magistrate and (iii) He can accept the report and order that the matter may be treated as closed. Therefore, in this case, since the crime was registered on the basis of the report filed by the appellant/petitioner dated 28.3.2013, it was the duty of the police officials to investigate and collect the necessary evidence in respect of the averment made in the report by the appellant/petitioner. Even if, the statement was made by learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner at bar before the learned Single Judge that he never prays for registration of the FIR against respondent No.5, such statement would not absolve the police personnel from their statutory duty to conduct investigation as per law. 13. In this view of the matter, this appeal is partly allowed. It is further directed that while dealing with the final report (if any) submitted by the Investigating Agency before the concerning Magistrate, the Magistrate shall be at liberty to deal with the matter as per the provision of section 173 of CrPC and shall not be affected by the directions issued by the learned Single Judg in Writ Petition No.2796/2013. 14. With the said modifications in the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2796/2013, this appeal stands disposed of.