2007 JTR(SC) 1359
2007 60 AIC 194 ; 2008 1 AICLR 15 ; 2008 AIR(SC) 178 ; 2007 AIR(SCW) 6453 ; 2007 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 3281 ; 2007 3 ALT(Cri)(SC) 382 ; 2007 3 ApexCJ(SC) 674 ; 2008 1 BBCJ(SC) 354 ; 2007 4 CriCC 866 ; 2007 CriLR 870 ; 2007 4 Crimes(SC) 153 ; 2008 CrLJ 356 ; 2007 144 DLT 241 ; 2008 1 EastCrC(SC) 24 ; 2007 13 JT 534 ; 2007 4 KLT 877 ; 2007 4 LawHerald(SC) 3421 ; 2008 1 MPHT 200 ; 2007 4 RCR(Cri) 762 ; 2007 12 Scale 288 ; 2007 10 SCC 69 ; 2008 1 SCC(Cri) 571 ; 2007 11 SCR 246 ; 2007 KHC 3987 ; 2007 7 Supreme 302
2007(7) Supreme 302
Supreme Court of india
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Rajinder Singh Katoch — Petitioner
versus
Chandigarh Administration & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (crl.) 1432 of 2007
(Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3360 of 2006)
Decided on : 12-10-2007
important point
In case of false allegations, Police authorities are not required to register FIR.
Act Referred :CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.154, S.482
(A) The impugned proceeding involves an appeal against the dismissal of a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read in conjunction with the obligations under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 482 confers inherent powers in the High Court to issue directions for securing the ends of justice, which includes quashing orders or compelling a Magistrate to exercise jurisdiction. Section 154 mandates the registration of a First Information Report when allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, subject to the overarching powers of the High Court to regulate criminal procedure. The interplay between these provisions determines whether the High Court was justified in declining to issue directions to register a case in a family dispute involving alleged house trespass and theft.
(B) The key legal principles are: (i) the non-justiciability of civil rights in criminal framing where a preliminary enquiry reveals the allegations to be false; (ii) the duty of the police to conduct a preliminary enquiry under Section 154 CrPC before registering an FIR; (iii) the limitation on the exercise of Section 482 powers where the statutory procedures have already been applied and found to be conclusive; and (iv) the principle that criminal process is not an appropriate forum to enforce co-sharer civil rights in joint family property.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a co-sharer in a joint family property, alleged that he was wrongfully restrained from entering the family house and accessing his belongings by his co-sharers. He claimed that despite disclosing a cognizable offence, the police refused to register a First Information Report. He filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court seeking directions to register an FIR. The High Court, after investigating the matter including a spot visit on its own, found the allegations to be false and motivated by an ulterior purpose to gain illegal possession.
Findings of Court:
The High Court correctly dismissed the petition. The police authorities had a duty to conduct a preliminary enquiry under Section 154 CrPC to ascertain the substance of the allegations before registering an FIR. Since the investigation revealed that the complaint was false and filed with an ulterior motive, no FIR was warranted. The civil dispute regarding occupancy and access could not be converted into a criminal case. The High Courts order was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues:
(i) Whether the police are bound to register an FIR merely upon allegations of cognizable offences in a family dispute concerning joint property? (ii) Whether Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to compel the registration of an FIR where the authorities have already conducted a preliminary enquiry and found the allegations to be baseless?
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that criminal remedies are not available to enforce civil rights of co-sharers in joint family property. The police, after conducting a preliminary enquiry and finding the allegations to be false, were justified in not registering an FIR. The High Courts discretionary powers under Section 482 are not engaged where the statutory process has been fairly applied and results in a valid finding of no cognizable offence.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed.
(A) The impugned proceeding involves an appeal against the dismissal of a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read in conjunction with the obligations under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 482 confers inherent powers in the High Court to issue directions for securing the ends of justice, which includes quashing orders or compelling a Magistrate to exercise jurisdiction. Section 154 mandates the registration of a First Information Report when allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, subject to the overarching powers of the High Court to regulate criminal procedure. The interplay between these provisions determines whether the High Court was justified in declining to issue directions to register a case in a family dispute involving alleged house trespass and theft.
(B) The key legal principles are: (i) the non-justiciability of civil rights in criminal framing where a preliminary enquiry reveals the allegations to be false; (ii) the duty of the police to conduct a preliminary enquiry under Section 154 CrPC before registering an FIR; (iii) the limitation on the exercise of Section 482 powers where the statutory procedures have already been applied and found to be conclusive; and (iv) the principle that criminal process is not an appropriate forum to enforce co-sharer civil rights in joint family property.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a co-sharer in a joint family property, alleged that he was wrongfully restrained from entering the family house and accessing his belongings by his co-sharers. He claimed that despite disclosing a cognizable offence, the police refused to register a First Information Report. He filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court seeking directions to register an FIR. The High Court, after investigating the matter including a spot visit on its own, found the allegations to be false and motivated by an ulterior purpose to gain illegal possession.
Findings of Court:
The High Court correctly dismissed the petition. The police authorities had a duty to conduct a preliminary enquiry under Section 154 CrPC to ascertain the substance of the allegations before registering an FIR. Since the investigation revealed that the complaint was false and filed with an ulterior motive, no FIR was warranted. The civil dispute regarding occupancy and access could not be converted into a criminal case. The High Courts order was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues:
(i) Whether the police are bound to register an FIR merely upon allegations of cognizable offences in a family dispute concerning joint property? (ii) Whether Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to compel the registration of an FIR where the authorities have already conducted a preliminary enquiry and found the allegations to be baseless?
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that criminal remedies are not available to enforce civil rights of co-sharers in joint family property. The police, after conducting a preliminary enquiry and finding the allegations to be false, were justified in not registering an FIR. The High Courts discretionary powers under Section 482 are not engaged where the statutory process has been fairly applied and results in a valid finding of no cognizable offence.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed.
judgment
S.B. Sinha, J. —
1.Leave granted.
2.Appellant and respondent No.4 herein are brothers and co-sharers. They jointly possess some properties. Appellant herein allegedly came to Chandigarh to reside in the family house sometimes in 2001. He allegedly kept his belongings there and came back to Delhi.
3.In 2002, he, when came to Chandigarh, was allegedly restrained by his brother from entering into the house. His complaint to the Police Station went unheeded. First Information Report, according to him, was not registered despite the fact that it disclosed a cognizable offence.
4.He filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The said application was dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment, stating :
“The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for issuing directions to respondents No.2 and 3 to register a case against respondent No.4 for house trespass and theft. Respondent No.4 is the real brother of the petitioner. The said house in question is a joint property of seven legal heirs. After the death of father of the petitioner, the same has been inherited by seven persons. In the reply, it has been stated that the petitioner was not residing in the aforesaid house and the allegations leveled by him found to be false being family dispute.”
5.Appellant, is, thus, before us.
6.Ms. Asha Jain Madan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, in support of this appeal, would submit that despite the fact that the property was a joint property, having regard to the provisions contained in Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, the respondent could not have wrongfully restrained the appellant from occupying the first floor of the property and have access to his belongings. It was urged that in terms of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Police Officers had a duty to register the first information report once the allegations disclosed commission of a cognizable offence.
7.Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and Mr. Ramesh Gautam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4, however, supported the judgment.
8.Although the officer in charge of a police station is legally bound to register a first information report in terms of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the allegations made by them gives rise to an offence which can be investigated without obtaining any permission from the Magistrate concerned; the same by itself, however, does not take away the right of the competent officer to make a preliminary enquiry, in a given case, in order to find out as to whether the first information sought to be lodged had any substance or not. In this case, the authorities had made investigations into the matter. In fact, the Superintendent of Police himself has, pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court, investigated into the matter and visited the spot in order to find out the truth in the complaint of the petitioner from the neighbours. It was found that the complaint made by the appellant was false and the same had been filed with an ulterior motive to take illegal possession of the first floor of the house.
9.Ms. Madan contended that the right of the appellant to live in the joint family cannot be taken away. Right of a co-sharer to enjoy the joint family property is a civil right. Such a right, if denied by the other co-sharers for one reason or the other, must be enforced by taking recourse to the remedies available under the civil laws.
10.Criminal proceedings, in our opinion, cannot be taken recourse to for enforcing such a civil right. In any event, in a case of this nature where the authorities bound by law have already investigated into the matter and found that the allegations made by the appellant against respondent No.4 were not correct, it would not be proper for us to issue any direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to lodge a first information report.
11.We are not oblivious to the decision of this Court in Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.,1 [(2006) 2 SCC 677] wherein such a statutory duty has been found in the Police Officer. But, as indicated hereinbefore, in an appropriate case, the Police Officers also have a duty to make a preliminary enquiry so as to find out as to whether allegations made had any substance or not.
12. In Shashikant v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.,2 [2006 (11) SCALE 272], this Court stated :
“Only an anonymous complaint was made in June 2004. Evidently it was within the province of the first respondent to commence a preliminary inquiry. The procedure laid down in the CBI Manual and in particular when it was required to inquire into the allegation of the corruption on the part of some public servants, recourse to the provisions of the Manual cannot be said to be unfair. It did not find any reason to convert the preliminary inquiry into a regular case. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the recommendations made by the first respondent, which had received the imprimatur by the Central Vigilance Commission, departmental proceedings were initiated. The Central vigilance Commission advised the Railway Board to initiate minor penalty proceedings against the delinquent officers by a letter dated 04.08.2005.”
13.There is no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed accordingly.
***********