Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1429 (MAD)

Tarini Ahlawat v. Commissioner of Police

2017-05-25

S.VIMALA

body2017
ORDER : "If I was asked to name any particular article in this Constitution as the most important - an article without which the Constitution would be a nullity-I could not refer to any other article except this one. It is the very soul of the Constitution and the heart of it." - Dr. Ambedkar - on importance of Article 32 2. Seeking direction for transfer of the complaint from the file of the second respondent to the third respondent and for registration and investigation of the case, this petition has been filed. 3. Brief facts:- 3.1. The petitioner, who wanted to be a pilot, having remained saturated with a passion to fly, obtained commercial pilot licence and passed out in the examination conducted by the Director General of Civil Aviation. 3.2. She came across the advertisement put out by M/s. Premier Airways Ltd., citing vacancy for co-pilot. On her application, she was invited for the interview, after which, she was informed that she has been selected and intimation letter was also given to her. The stipulation regarding training and payment had been incorporated in the letter. 3.3. Towards training expenses, she was called upon to make payment of Rs.25,00,000/-, with a promise that appointment order would follow after payment. The petitioner made payment of Rs.25,00,000/- vide Demand Draft No.833909, drawn on HDFC Bank, dated 27.01.2015. Letter of appointment issued on 31.01.2015. She was offered training in type-rating alone and no training on inflight training, ground training and technical training was offered. No salary was paid. After waiting for two years, the petitioner resigned from the job. The amount was not returned to the petitioner. 3.4. With these facts on 18.10.2016, the petitioner preferred a complaint before the Inspector of Police, K-4 Police Station, Anna Nagar, Chennai, alleging cheating and fraud. 3.5. CSR No.935 of 2016 dated 24.11.2016 was issued, but, no further action has been taken. Not even a summon has been issued to the accused Mr. Umapathi Pinghapani. 3.6. At the request of the Inspector of Police, the petitioner was directed to prefer another complaint before the Central Crime Branch, Chennai. Accordingly, complaint was given before the second respondent on 09.03.2017. The second respondent also did not take any action also. Not even a summon has been issued to the accused Mr. Umapathi Pinghapani. 3.6. At the request of the Inspector of Police, the petitioner was directed to prefer another complaint before the Central Crime Branch, Chennai. Accordingly, complaint was given before the second respondent on 09.03.2017. The second respondent also did not take any action also. Even though the act of the accused person would show that the accused is liable for punishment under Section 405, 406 and 420 IPC, no FIR has been registered. 3.7. The petitioner seeks transfer of the complaint from the file of the second respondent as well as the Inspector of Police, K-4 Police Station, Anna Nagar, to the file of the third respondent, with a further direction to the third respondent to register FIR on the complaint dated 18.10.2016/09.03.2017, to complete the investigation and to file a final report within the limited period of time. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents on instructions would submit that in respect of the complaint preferred by one Baskaran against the same accused, F.I.R. has been registered in Cr.No.31 of 2016 by C.C.B., Chennai and if the compliant preferred by the petitioner is also been transferred to C.C.B., Chennai, the petitioner herein would be treated as witness and her statement also could be recorded and further proceedings would be taken. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner was not agreeable for such a remedy and expressed his apprehension that without knowing the complete details of the complaint preferred by Baskaran, it is not preferrable to offer the petitioner as a witness in a case preferred by Baskaran. It is also pointed out that in the event of any compromise between the defacto complaint Baskaran and the accused therein, the interest of the petitioner cannot be protected and therefore, in the interest of justice, the complaint of the petitioner should be dealt with separately. 6. In the stated circumstances, the complaint preferred by the petitioner at K4-Anna Nagar Police station which is taken on file in C.S.R.No.935 of 2016 is ordered to be transferred to CCB, Chennai and the C.C.B., Chennai is directed to register the First Information Report in the light of the directions issued by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P., in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68 of 2008 dated 12.11.2013, wherein, it is held as follows:- “The registration of First Information Report is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Supreme Court issued the following Guidelines regarding the registration of FIR. (i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. (ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. (iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. (iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. (v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. (vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:- (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. (vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. (viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above. 7. The respondents should have scrupulously followed those instructions of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the complaint of the petitioner. The complaint, which discloses the commission of the cognizable offence, ought to have been registered as FIR and it should not have been registered as CSR. 8. Therefore, the second respondent is directed to register the First Information Report based on the complaint of the petitioner, conduct the investigation and to file the final report, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8.1. It is open to the second respondent to seek parrellel trial or simultaneous trial, before the concerned Court, if the complaint of the petitioner and that of Baskaran is similar in nature, warranting such an exercise. 9. With the above directions, this petition is disposed of.