Writ Petition No. 3386 of 2012

15th October, 2012

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. GANESH BHUJBAL
Respondent Counsel: Mrs. M.M. DESHMUKH

Cases Cited:
Sandeep Rammilan Shukla Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 2991 =(2009) (1) Mh.L.J. 97 [Para 3]
Aleque Padamsee & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2007 ALL SCR 1978 =(2007) (9) SCALE SCC 275 [Para 6]
Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2008 ALL SCR 1890 =(2008) (2) SCC 409 [Para 6]

JUDGMENT

A. S. OKA, J. :- Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for State. Rule. Learned A.P.P. waives service for the Respondents. Taken up for hearing.

2. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that though the petitioner has made a complaint dated 26th August, 2011 with Vadgaon Nimbalkar Police Station, Taluka Baramati, District Pune alleging the commission of cognizable offence by certain persons, no action has been taken on the basis of said complaint. On the last date, we directed the learned A.P.P. to take instructions. However, the learned A.P.P. states that concerned Officer has not given instructions.

3. It will be necessary to make a reference under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "said Code"). Sub-section 1 of Section 154 uses the word "shall". Sub-section 1 of Section 154 came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court. In the case of Sandeep Rammilan Shukla V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2009)(1) Mh.L.J. page 97] : [2009 ALL MR (Cri) 2991], the Full Bench held that the expression "shall" appearing in section 154 of the said Code is mandatory and the section places an absolute duty on the part of the officer-in-charge of police station to record information and place substance thereof in the prescribed book, when the information supplied or brought to his notice discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Full Bench held that the law does not specifically prohibit conducting of a limited preliminary inquiry, prior to registration of First Information Report in exceptional and rare cases by the officerincharge of Police Station. The Full Bench has laid down the manner in which the preliminary enquiry should be held. Full Bench held that such enquiry shall be completed expeditiously and in any case not later than two days. Thus, the Rule is that when information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, even if given orally to an officer-in-charge of police station, the same shall be reduced in writing in the manner provided under sub-section 1 of Section 154 of the said Code. Thus, it is obvious that what is provided in sub-section (1) of Section 154 is the mandatory duty. The law enjoins the said officer to act immediately and to register the offence without any loss of time so that the investigation starts immediately. The recourse to the preliminary inquiry can be taken only in rare and exceptional cases. The Full Bench has fixed outer limit of two days to hold such inquiry.

4. We may also make reference to the sub-section 3 of Section 154 of the said Code. It provides that in the event, there is a refusal on the part of the officer-in-charge of the Police Station to record information referred in sub-section (1) of Section 154, the aggrieved person is entitled to send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him. Even this sub-section incorporates a mandatory provision which enjoins the Superintendent of Police to take action without any delay.

5. Large number of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are being filed in this Court making a grievance regarding failure to register the offence in accordance with sub-section 1 of Section 154 of the said Code, though either complaint in writing is lodged with the concerned police station or the statement of the complainant is recorded by the Police. Such petitions are being filed only because the concerned officer of the police do not care to inform the complainants about the action taken on the complaints. In view of the decision of the Full Bench, at highest and that also in exceptional and rare cases, the concerned officer has time of two days to hold preliminary enquiry. In all other cases, the officer is expected to act immediately. Only in exceptional cases, he gets time of two days. The very fact that sub-section (3) of Section 154 gives a remedy to the person aggrieved by the failure on the part of the officer to record the information shows that the duty is cast on the police officer with whom the complaint is filed, to immediately inform the complainant about the refusal to record the information referred to under Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Code and officer-in-charge of the police station is duty bound to issue communication to the complainant of refusal on his part to record information. Only if such information is communicated to the complainant that he will be in a position to avail of the remedy under Sub-section (3) of Section 154 of the said Code.

6. We are conscious of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions in the cases of Aleque Padamsee & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.(2007)(9) SCALE SCC 275 : [2007 ALL SCR 1978] and Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2008)(2) SCC 409 : [2008 ALL SCR 1890]. It is laid down that normally a Writ Court shall not issue a writ directing registration of an offence in view of availability of statutory remedies under the said Code.

7. Nevertheless to enable the complainant to expeditiously avail of the statutory remedies, the minimum which is expected is that he should be immediately informed by the officer-in-charge of the police station regarding fate of the complaint. If the police officer decides to register information in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 154, for which he has hardly any choice, he is duty bound to give a copy of the information recorded to the complainant free of cost. If he is of the view that a case of commission of cognizable offence is not made out, he must forthwith inform the complainant accordingly by a communication. We are of the view that the Director General of Police should issue directions to all police stations in the State directing the officers-in-charge of the police station to forthwith issue a communication to the complainants about refusal to record the information in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 154. Appropriate time limit which should be very short will have to be provided for issuing said communication so that the very object of lodging complaint should not be frustrated. If there is a gross delay in issuing communication, even the remedies provided under the said Code in a given case may become redundant. Such direction is required to be issued to ensure that complainants get opportunity to avail of the remedies under the said Code.

8. Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing following order :-

(i) We direct the third respondent to communicate in writing to the petitioner the decision taken on the basis of the complaint dated 26th August, 2011 within a period of one week from today.

(ii) We hereby direct the Director General of Police to issue directions to all the police stations in the State as indicated in the earlier part of this order.

(iii) For reporting compliance, this petition shall be placed on daily board on 1st November, 2012 under the caption of "Directions". All parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

Ordered accordingly.