Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 473 (ALL)

Sanjeev v. State Of U. P.

2020-02-12

DEEPAK VERMA, MANOJ MISRA

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A., for the respondents 1, 2 and 3; Sri Pankaj Satsangi for the respondent no.4; and perused the record. 2. The instant petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 20.11.2019 registered as Case Crime No.1164 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 193, 120-B IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Moradabad. 3. In brief the factual matrix is as under. The petitioner no.1 filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad against three persons, namely, Ram Babu, Harpal and Rajaram, in respect of an incident dated 06.10.2017 by alleging that when he was going on a motorcycle, the accused came in a vehicle, dashed their vehicle on to the motorcycle, and, thereafter, assaulted him and left him seriously injured. Whereafter, he was brought by his associates Jagdish and others to Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad but his report was not registered. Consequently, he got himself medically examined at Government Hospital, Rampur Ghoghar. When, on the said complaint, the accused were summoned, accused Ram Babu (respondent no.4) and Harpal moved an anticipatory bail application No.210 of 2019 in the court of Sessions Judge, Moradabad. They claimed that the injury report submitted by the complainant was bogus. The learned District Judge called for registers of the hospital concerned and sent the same to the C.M.O., Moradabad. The C.M.O., Moradabad submitted inquiry report vide letter No. CMO/Medico Legal-Jaanch/2019/13097 dated 19.10.2019 giving his findings. On the findings in that report that there is no record available of medico legal examination and the medical officer and other employees have no knowledge with regard thereto, vide order dated 07.11.2019, the learned Sessions Judge, Moradabad granted anticipatory bail to the accused and in the concluding paragraph observed as follows:- "However, on the basis of above discussion and mainly considering the inquiry report of CMO, mentioned above, as well as seriousness of matter, the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Moradabad is, hereby, expected to conduct the thorough investigation in the matter against the concerned person(s)/Medical Officer(s), who is/are involved in making fake and fabricated injury reports. If necessary, the FIR be also lodged against the person(s)/Medical Officer(s), who is/are involved in the matter accordingly. Let a copy of inquiry report conducted by C.M.O. and report of R.T.I., as above, be also sent to the S.S.P., Moradabad for perusal. If necessary, the FIR be also lodged against the person(s)/Medical Officer(s), who is/are involved in the matter accordingly. Let a copy of inquiry report conducted by C.M.O. and report of R.T.I., as above, be also sent to the S.S.P., Moradabad for perusal. The two registers, which are available with the court, may be remitted back to Sanyukt Chikitsalye Rampur Ghoghar, Moradabad, through C.M.O." 4. It appears that before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad could himself hold an inquiry and lodge first information report, the accused of that complaint case, namely, Ram Babu (respondent no.4), lodged the impugned first information report on 20.11.2019, which was registered as Case Crime No.1164 of 2019 at P.S. Civil Lines, District Moradabad, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 193, 120-B IPC, naming Sanjeev and four others including the doctor of the concerned hospital. 5. This petition has been filed challenging the impugned first information report on the ground that since, as per the order of the Sessions Judge, Moradabad, the FIR was to be lodged by the Senior Superintendent of Police after conducting inquiry, the impugned first information report could not have been lodged by the fourth respondent. 6. On 17.01.2020, after considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court required the learned A.G.A. to seek instructions whether any inquiry was undertaken/completed pursuant to the order of learned Sessions Judge, Moradabad. 7. Pursuant to the above order, Sub-Inspector, P.S. Civil Lines, District Moradabad has filed a short counter affidavit stating that the inquiry has not yet been ordered by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad though the first information report has been registered. 8. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether in the facts of the case there was any legal bar for registration of the impugned FIR at the instance of the fourth respondent. 9. It is well settled that ordinarily any person can lodge a report in respect of a cognizable offence unless the statutory provisions specify otherwise. In the instant case, while granting anticipatory bail, learned Sessions Judge had found from the report of the C.M.O. that the medico legal examination on which the complainant had placed reliance was not traceable in the records. In the instant case, while granting anticipatory bail, learned Sessions Judge had found from the report of the C.M.O. that the medico legal examination on which the complainant had placed reliance was not traceable in the records. Whether the report was a fabricated document, or by negligence the medical examination and the report was not entered in the registers of the hospital concerned, is an aspect to be determined, which can be done on the basis of material collected during the course of investigation, and, thereafter, if required, on the basis of the evidence led in trial. But, since the allegation is that there had been no medical examination and that the report was fabricated, there would be no legal embargo in registration of the first information report because, prima facie, a cognizable offence has been committed and it is not the requirement of law that before registration of FIR in respect of a case relating to cheating by use of fabricated documents a preliminary enquiry is a must. 10. At this stage, it would be useful to reproduce the concluding part of the decision of five Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P.: (2014) 2 SCC 1 wherein, in paragraphs 120 to 120.6, it was observed as follows:- "120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: 120.1 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. 120.2 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. 120.3 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. 120.4 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. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. 120.4 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. 120.5 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. 120.6 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." 11. From the law noticed above, no doubt before registration of a case pertaining to medical negligence, a preliminary enquiry may be required but not in respect of cases where there is production of a fabricated medical report and the allegation is in respect of cheating by use of fabricated documents. Moreover, in the instant case, the Chief Medical Officer had allegedly conducted an inquiry and had already submitted a report in the proceeding relating to anticipatory bail indicating that the medico legal documents were not referable to the records and the staff had no clue about it. Hence, it cannot be said that there is no material for lodging the first information report. 12. The order of the learned Sessions Judge, Moradabad expressing expectation that inquiry would be conducted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad in the matter and that first information report would be lodged thereafter, if required, is by way of a reminder to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad to take action. But that observation by itself would not create a legal restriction/bar on another person, namely, the person aggrieved by that false report, to lodge first information report of a cognizable offence. 13. But that observation by itself would not create a legal restriction/bar on another person, namely, the person aggrieved by that false report, to lodge first information report of a cognizable offence. 13. As already a report of the alleged cognizable offence has been made, another report by the Senior Superintendent of Police would be duplication of the first information report for the same offence, which is not permissible by law. Therefore, it would be appropriate that the FIR already registered is investigated with utmost sincerity. 14. Under the circumstances, the prayer of the petitioners to quash the first information report cannot be accepted. 15. The petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to apply for bail/anticipatory bail, as may be advised.