Full Judgment Text
1
Cri.W.P. 76-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 76 OF 2020
Arun s/o Shriram Devare,
Age 40 years, Occu. Service,
at present nil,
R/o At Biladi, Post Nagaon,
Taluka and District Dhule .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Dhule, District Dhule
2. The Police Inspector,
Songir Police Station, Songir,
Taluka and District Dhule
3. Subhash s/o Sahebrao Patil,
President, Dwarkamai Sarvangin Vikas
Sanstha, Vishwanath,
Taluka and District Dhule
4. Chetana Subhash Patil,
Age major, Occu. Nil,
R/o Shri Guru Colony, Plot No.32,
Behind A.S.R. Patil High School,
Valvadi-Shivar, Deopur,
District Dhule
5. Kailas Jairam Suryawanshi,
Age major, Occu. Head Master,
Jai Jogeshwari Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
Vishwanath, Taluka and District Dhule
6. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Dhule, District Dhule .. Respondents
Mr S.S Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner
Mr M.M. Nerlikar, A.P.P. for respondents no.1, 2 and 6
Mr P.S. Paranjape, Advocate for respondents no.3 to 5
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
th
DATE : 26 June 2020
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J. )
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for
both the sides, heard finally at admission stage.
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:40 :::
2
Cri.W.P. 76-2020
2. The petitioner seeks issuance of writ of mandamus to register the crime
against the persons involved in the incident of preparing forged and fraudulent
approval to the services of respondent no.4 and getting the salary of that post.
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this petition is as under:
4. The respondents no. 3 to 5 are the persons alleged to have involved in
preparing the forged documents in the shape of approval and thereby
withdrawing the salary of respondent no. 4, for more than twelve years to
enormous extent and thereby causing loss to the public exchequer.
Respondents no.3 to 5, in order to ensure that respondent no.4 is appointed in
place of petitioner as Drawing Teacher, terminated the services of the petitioner
even though the claim of reinstatement of the petitioner is upheld by the School
Tribunal and endorsed upto the Honourable Apex Court, did not comply with the
order of reinstatement with backwages and contempt proceeding is pending
before this Court. Apart from withdrawing the salary of respondent no. 4,
respondents no. 3 to 5, in connivance and to confer the benefit in the shape of
salary from public exchequer have gone to the extent of preparing the forged
and fraudulent approval to the services of respondent no.4, who is daughter of
respondent no.3, who happened to be President of the Trust, whereas
respondent no. 5 is the Head Master of the school and instrumental in the entire
process in the manipulation of record of approval. On the basis of fraudulent
approval, respondent no.4 has alleged to have withdrawn the salary from
12.7.2006 to June 2018 vis-a-vis from March, 2019 to May, 2019.
5. The fact of fraudulent approval to the services of respondent no. 4 has
been reflected in the affidavit filed by the Deputy Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Dhule in Writ Petition No. 6754 of 2016. This Court has
dismissed the petition filed by respondent no.4 challenging the order of
revocation of approval. There was round of litigation earlier regarding
registration of crime against the respondents by way of Criminal Writ Petition
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:40 :::
3
Cri.W.P. 76-2020
No. 1502 of 2017, wherein a statement was made that, upon enquiry conducted
in the allegations made by the petitioner, the Investigating Officer found that
approval granted for appointment of respondent no. 4 is genuine and as such,
there is no substance in the allegations. While accepting the said statement,
this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to take legal steps which are available.
In order to point out the incorrect statement, the petitioner had taken out
Criminal Application no. 1502 of 2017 which has been withdrawn.
6. The Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhule, by communication dated
10.8.2018 called upon respondent no. 5 stating that approval to the services of
respondent no.4 is bogus and on the strength of bogus approval, the salary of
respondent no. 4 has been withdrawn from 12.6.2006 to June 2018 and thereby
caused loss to the Government. The Head Master and the Trust have deceived
the Government and directed to deposit the amount within a period of seven
days; failing which they have to face appropriate action. By way of another step,
the Education Officer, by his letter dated 7.1.2019, called upon the explanation
as to why criminal offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code should
not be lodged against respondents no. 3 to 5, for causing loss to the
Government.
7. In the above premise, the petitioner lodged complaint on 29.8.2019 with
respondent no. 2/Police Inspector, Songir Police Station, Dhule. Later on, one
more complaint came to be filed on 12.12.2019 pointing out commission of
cognizable offences attributed against respondents no. 3 to 5 and causing loss
to the public exchequer to enormous extent, as the salary has been withdrawn
from 12.6.2006 to June 2018 vis-a-vis March 2019 to May 2019, which comes to
appropriately Rs.50 lakhs.
8. It is contended that the above referred communications established the
fact of commission of fraud, forgery, mischief and misappropriation of public
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:40 :::
4
Cri.W.P. 76-2020
money and thereby making out cognizable offences contemplated under Section
154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, respondent no. 2 did not
register the F.I.R. and made communication dated 16.10.2019 stating that said
matter is concerned with the Education Department. According to the petitioner,
the cognizable offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420, 466, 472,
120-B of the Indian Penal Code are prima facie made out. Even then,
respondent no.2/Police Inspector of Songir Police Station yet not registered the
crime against the concerned persons and sought directions in this Writ Petition.
9. Heard Mr S.S Deshmukh, Counsel for petitioner, Mr M.M. Nerlikar, A.P.P.
for respondents no.1, 2 and 6 and Mr P.S. Paranjape, learned Counsel for
respondents no.3 to 5.
10. Perused the papers annexed with the petition and various
communications and complaints lodged by the petitioner dated 29.8.2019 and
12.12.2019 with Songir Police Station.
11. Mr S.S. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that
when cognizable offences are prima facie disclosed on the basis of allegations
made in the complaint, in view of Section 154 (1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, it is mandatory on the part of Police Officer to register the F.I.R.. Mr
Deshmukh submitted that respondent no.2 has not at all responded in spite of
persuasion and follow up by the petitioner, in view of complaints dated
29.8.2019 and 12.12.2019 lodged by him. Mr Deshmukh invited our attention to
the citation of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt.
of U.P. and Ors., reported in 2014 CRI. L.J. 470. By placing reliance on the
ratio laid down in case of Lalita Kumari (supra), Mr Deshmukh sought
directions against the Police officials for registration of crime on the basis of
complaints lodged by the petitioner.
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:40 :::
5
Cri.W.P. 76-2020
12. Mr M.M. Nerlikar, learned A.P.P. for respondents no. 1, 2 and 6 and Mr
P.S. Paranjape, learned Counsel for respondents no. 3 to 5 opposed to allow
this petition by inviting our attention to the various communications placed on
record.
13. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for
both the sides.
14. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in case of Lalita Kumari
Vs. Govt. of U.P. and ors. (supra), held as under :
" 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.
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:40 :::
6
Cri.W.P. 76-2020
(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.
(viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the
record of all information received in a police station, directed 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.
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:40 :::
7
Cri.W.P. 76-2020
Therefore, conducting an investigation into an offence after
registration of FIR under Section 154 of the Code is the
“procedure established by law” and, thus, is in conformity with
Article 21 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the right of the
accused under Article 21 of the Constitution is protected if the
FIR is registered first and then the investigation is conducted in
accordance with the provisions of law. The plea that if despite
the fact that the police officer is not prima facie satisfied, as
regards commission of a cognizable offence and proceeds to
register an FIR and carries out an investigation, it would result
in putting the liberty of a citizen in jeopardy and therefore,
police must have liberty to hold preliminary inquiry before
registration of FIR goes against the very language of S.154. In
terms of the language used in Section 154 of the Code, the
police is duty bound to proceed to conduct investigation into a
cognizable offence even without receiving information (i.e. FIR)
about commission of such an offence, if the officer - in-charge
of the police station otherwise suspects the commission of
such an offence. The legislative intent is therefore quite clear,
i.e., to ensure that every cognizable offence is promptly
investigated in accordance with law. This being the legal
position, there is no reason that there should be any discretion
or option left with the police to register or not to register an FIR
when information is given about the commission of a
cognizable offence. Every cognizable offence must be
investigated promptly in accordance with law and all
information provided under Section 154 about the commission
of a cognizable offence must be registered."
15. Therefore, it is obligatory on the part of Police Officer to register F.I.R.
when cognizable offences are made out in the complaint. The Police Officer
cannot refuse to register F.I.R. by pointing out that some enquiry is going on
in another department on the same set of allegations.
16. Having regard to the legal position made clear by the Honourable
Supreme Court in case of Lalita Kumari (supra), if allegations made in the
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:40 :::
8
Cri.W.P. 76-2020
complaints lodged by the petitioner dated 29.8.2019 and 12.12.2019 with
Police Inspector, Songir Police Station, District Dhule are considered, prima
facie cognizable offences do attract. It is a case of preparation of forged
documents, fraud and causing loss of huge amount of public money. The
Police Officer cannot refuse to register the F.I.R. At the stage of registration
of crime, or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable
offence in compliance with the mandate of Section 154(1) of the Code, the
Police Officer concerned cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the
information given by the informant is reliable or genuine or otherwise and
refuse to register F.I.R. on the ground that information is not reliable or
credible. On the other hand, the Officer in-charge of a Police Station is
statutorily obliged to register a case and then to proceed with the
investigation if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence
which he is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate,
subject to the proviso to Section 157 thereof.
17. Having regard to the above reasons and discussions, we arrive at a
conclusion that prayer of petitioner for issuance of mandamus for registration
of crime against the concerned persons needs to be allowed when it is a
case of loss of huge amount of Government money on the basis of forged
documents.
18. Resultantly, we allow the Writ Petition and direct respondents no. 1
and 2 to register the crime in respect of the incident of forged and fraudulent
approval of teacher and getting salary of that post.
19. It is open for the Police Officer to file charge-sheet, if necessary
against all the persons who are involved in preparing forged and fraudulent
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:40 :::
9
Cri.W.P. 76-2020
record and misappropriation of government money.
20. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) ( T.V. NALAWADE, J.)
vvr
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:40 :::
Cri.W.P. 76-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 76 OF 2020
Arun s/o Shriram Devare,
Age 40 years, Occu. Service,
at present nil,
R/o At Biladi, Post Nagaon,
Taluka and District Dhule .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Dhule, District Dhule
2. The Police Inspector,
Songir Police Station, Songir,
Taluka and District Dhule
3. Subhash s/o Sahebrao Patil,
President, Dwarkamai Sarvangin Vikas
Sanstha, Vishwanath,
Taluka and District Dhule
4. Chetana Subhash Patil,
Age major, Occu. Nil,
R/o Shri Guru Colony, Plot No.32,
Behind A.S.R. Patil High School,
Valvadi-Shivar, Deopur,
District Dhule
5. Kailas Jairam Suryawanshi,
Age major, Occu. Head Master,
Jai Jogeshwari Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
Vishwanath, Taluka and District Dhule
6. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Dhule, District Dhule .. Respondents
Mr S.S Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner
Mr M.M. Nerlikar, A.P.P. for respondents no.1, 2 and 6
Mr P.S. Paranjape, Advocate for respondents no.3 to 5
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
th
DATE : 26 June 2020
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J. )
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for
both the sides, heard finally at admission stage.
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:40 :::
2
Cri.W.P. 76-2020
2. The petitioner seeks issuance of writ of mandamus to register the crime
against the persons involved in the incident of preparing forged and fraudulent
approval to the services of respondent no.4 and getting the salary of that post.
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this petition is as under:
4. The respondents no. 3 to 5 are the persons alleged to have involved in
preparing the forged documents in the shape of approval and thereby
withdrawing the salary of respondent no. 4, for more than twelve years to
enormous extent and thereby causing loss to the public exchequer.
Respondents no.3 to 5, in order to ensure that respondent no.4 is appointed in
place of petitioner as Drawing Teacher, terminated the services of the petitioner
even though the claim of reinstatement of the petitioner is upheld by the School
Tribunal and endorsed upto the Honourable Apex Court, did not comply with the
order of reinstatement with backwages and contempt proceeding is pending
before this Court. Apart from withdrawing the salary of respondent no. 4,
respondents no. 3 to 5, in connivance and to confer the benefit in the shape of
salary from public exchequer have gone to the extent of preparing the forged
and fraudulent approval to the services of respondent no.4, who is daughter of
respondent no.3, who happened to be President of the Trust, whereas
respondent no. 5 is the Head Master of the school and instrumental in the entire
process in the manipulation of record of approval. On the basis of fraudulent
approval, respondent no.4 has alleged to have withdrawn the salary from
12.7.2006 to June 2018 vis-a-vis from March, 2019 to May, 2019.
5. The fact of fraudulent approval to the services of respondent no. 4 has
been reflected in the affidavit filed by the Deputy Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Dhule in Writ Petition No. 6754 of 2016. This Court has
dismissed the petition filed by respondent no.4 challenging the order of
revocation of approval. There was round of litigation earlier regarding
registration of crime against the respondents by way of Criminal Writ Petition
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:40 :::
3
Cri.W.P. 76-2020
No. 1502 of 2017, wherein a statement was made that, upon enquiry conducted
in the allegations made by the petitioner, the Investigating Officer found that
approval granted for appointment of respondent no. 4 is genuine and as such,
there is no substance in the allegations. While accepting the said statement,
this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to take legal steps which are available.
In order to point out the incorrect statement, the petitioner had taken out
Criminal Application no. 1502 of 2017 which has been withdrawn.
6. The Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhule, by communication dated
10.8.2018 called upon respondent no. 5 stating that approval to the services of
respondent no.4 is bogus and on the strength of bogus approval, the salary of
respondent no. 4 has been withdrawn from 12.6.2006 to June 2018 and thereby
caused loss to the Government. The Head Master and the Trust have deceived
the Government and directed to deposit the amount within a period of seven
days; failing which they have to face appropriate action. By way of another step,
the Education Officer, by his letter dated 7.1.2019, called upon the explanation
as to why criminal offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code should
not be lodged against respondents no. 3 to 5, for causing loss to the
Government.
7. In the above premise, the petitioner lodged complaint on 29.8.2019 with
respondent no. 2/Police Inspector, Songir Police Station, Dhule. Later on, one
more complaint came to be filed on 12.12.2019 pointing out commission of
cognizable offences attributed against respondents no. 3 to 5 and causing loss
to the public exchequer to enormous extent, as the salary has been withdrawn
from 12.6.2006 to June 2018 vis-a-vis March 2019 to May 2019, which comes to
appropriately Rs.50 lakhs.
8. It is contended that the above referred communications established the
fact of commission of fraud, forgery, mischief and misappropriation of public
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:40 :::
4
Cri.W.P. 76-2020
money and thereby making out cognizable offences contemplated under Section
154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, respondent no. 2 did not
register the F.I.R. and made communication dated 16.10.2019 stating that said
matter is concerned with the Education Department. According to the petitioner,
the cognizable offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420, 466, 472,
120-B of the Indian Penal Code are prima facie made out. Even then,
respondent no.2/Police Inspector of Songir Police Station yet not registered the
crime against the concerned persons and sought directions in this Writ Petition.
9. Heard Mr S.S Deshmukh, Counsel for petitioner, Mr M.M. Nerlikar, A.P.P.
for respondents no.1, 2 and 6 and Mr P.S. Paranjape, learned Counsel for
respondents no.3 to 5.
10. Perused the papers annexed with the petition and various
communications and complaints lodged by the petitioner dated 29.8.2019 and
12.12.2019 with Songir Police Station.
11. Mr S.S. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that
when cognizable offences are prima facie disclosed on the basis of allegations
made in the complaint, in view of Section 154 (1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, it is mandatory on the part of Police Officer to register the F.I.R.. Mr
Deshmukh submitted that respondent no.2 has not at all responded in spite of
persuasion and follow up by the petitioner, in view of complaints dated
29.8.2019 and 12.12.2019 lodged by him. Mr Deshmukh invited our attention to
the citation of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt.
of U.P. and Ors., reported in 2014 CRI. L.J. 470. By placing reliance on the
ratio laid down in case of Lalita Kumari (supra), Mr Deshmukh sought
directions against the Police officials for registration of crime on the basis of
complaints lodged by the petitioner.
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:40 :::
5
Cri.W.P. 76-2020
12. Mr M.M. Nerlikar, learned A.P.P. for respondents no. 1, 2 and 6 and Mr
P.S. Paranjape, learned Counsel for respondents no. 3 to 5 opposed to allow
this petition by inviting our attention to the various communications placed on
record.
13. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for
both the sides.
14. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in case of Lalita Kumari
Vs. Govt. of U.P. and ors. (supra), held as under :
" 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.
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:40 :::
6
Cri.W.P. 76-2020
(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.
(viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the
record of all information received in a police station, directed 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.
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:40 :::
7
Cri.W.P. 76-2020
Therefore, conducting an investigation into an offence after
registration of FIR under Section 154 of the Code is the
“procedure established by law” and, thus, is in conformity with
Article 21 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the right of the
accused under Article 21 of the Constitution is protected if the
FIR is registered first and then the investigation is conducted in
accordance with the provisions of law. The plea that if despite
the fact that the police officer is not prima facie satisfied, as
regards commission of a cognizable offence and proceeds to
register an FIR and carries out an investigation, it would result
in putting the liberty of a citizen in jeopardy and therefore,
police must have liberty to hold preliminary inquiry before
registration of FIR goes against the very language of S.154. In
terms of the language used in Section 154 of the Code, the
police is duty bound to proceed to conduct investigation into a
cognizable offence even without receiving information (i.e. FIR)
about commission of such an offence, if the officer - in-charge
of the police station otherwise suspects the commission of
such an offence. The legislative intent is therefore quite clear,
i.e., to ensure that every cognizable offence is promptly
investigated in accordance with law. This being the legal
position, there is no reason that there should be any discretion
or option left with the police to register or not to register an FIR
when information is given about the commission of a
cognizable offence. Every cognizable offence must be
investigated promptly in accordance with law and all
information provided under Section 154 about the commission
of a cognizable offence must be registered."
15. Therefore, it is obligatory on the part of Police Officer to register F.I.R.
when cognizable offences are made out in the complaint. The Police Officer
cannot refuse to register F.I.R. by pointing out that some enquiry is going on
in another department on the same set of allegations.
16. Having regard to the legal position made clear by the Honourable
Supreme Court in case of Lalita Kumari (supra), if allegations made in the
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:40 :::
8
Cri.W.P. 76-2020
complaints lodged by the petitioner dated 29.8.2019 and 12.12.2019 with
Police Inspector, Songir Police Station, District Dhule are considered, prima
facie cognizable offences do attract. It is a case of preparation of forged
documents, fraud and causing loss of huge amount of public money. The
Police Officer cannot refuse to register the F.I.R. At the stage of registration
of crime, or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable
offence in compliance with the mandate of Section 154(1) of the Code, the
Police Officer concerned cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the
information given by the informant is reliable or genuine or otherwise and
refuse to register F.I.R. on the ground that information is not reliable or
credible. On the other hand, the Officer in-charge of a Police Station is
statutorily obliged to register a case and then to proceed with the
investigation if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence
which he is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate,
subject to the proviso to Section 157 thereof.
17. Having regard to the above reasons and discussions, we arrive at a
conclusion that prayer of petitioner for issuance of mandamus for registration
of crime against the concerned persons needs to be allowed when it is a
case of loss of huge amount of Government money on the basis of forged
documents.
18. Resultantly, we allow the Writ Petition and direct respondents no. 1
and 2 to register the crime in respect of the incident of forged and fraudulent
approval of teacher and getting salary of that post.
19. It is open for the Police Officer to file charge-sheet, if necessary
against all the persons who are involved in preparing forged and fraudulent
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:40 :::
9
Cri.W.P. 76-2020
record and misappropriation of government money.
20. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) ( T.V. NALAWADE, J.)
vvr
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:53:40 :::