Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 273 (AP)

Anisetti Venkata Nagendra Babu v. State of A. P.

2019-10-14

G.SHYAM PRASAD

body2019
ORDER : G. Shyam Prasad, J. 1. This is a writ of Mandamus filed by the petitioner for a direction to the 2nd respondent to register the FIR against the persons who are illegally interfering in respect of R.S. No. 398/1A at Yadavolu Village, Devarapalli Mandal, West Godavari District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the absolute owner of agricultural land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 6.12 cents in R.S. No. 398/1A at Yadavolu Village Devarapalli Mandal, West Godavari District. Some third parties are trying to grab the land of the petitioner. They unlawfully entered into his land and damaged the crop worth of Rs. 1,00,000/-. He went to Police Station on 07.09.2019 and gave complaint personally. But, the Sub Inspector of Police refused to receive the complaint. The Inspector of Police has returned the complaint stating that the address was 'insufficient'. 4. Learned Government Pleader submits that the father of the petitioner has also sent another complaint on 04.10.2019 in respect of the same cause of action. It was registered as Crime No. 249 of 2019 under Sections 447, 427, 506 read with 34 IPC and investigated. 5. In the light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader, it appears that the father of the petitioner has lodged a complaint on 04.10.2019 and the same was registered as Crime No. 249 of 2019 in respect of the same R.S. No. 398/1A of Yadavolu Village, pertaining to Ac. 6.12 cents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has also submitted two complaints separately on two different cause of actions, but the police have not registered the same. 7. Considering the submissions of both the counsel, the police are directed to consider the complaint of the petitioner keeping in view the ratio laid down by Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. 2009 (1) ALT (Crl.) 274 (SC) : (2014) 2 SCC 1 . (111) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: (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. of U.P. 2009 (1) ALT (Crl.) 274 (SC) : (2014) 2 SCC 1 . (111) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: (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 firsts 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, over 3 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. (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. (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. 8. In the light of foregoing reasons and in view of the observations in the above judgment, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.