In CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3289 OF 2019-BOM HC- Police Officer is duty bound to register crime when complaint discloses ingredients of cognizable offence: Bombay HC Justices C.V. Bhadang & Bharat Pandurang Deshpande [20-07-2022]

Read Order: Ayyub S/o Younus Bagmaru v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors 

Tulip Kanth

Aurangabad, July 23, 2022: Declining to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC and without interfering with the FIR filed against the applicant by the concerned Police Authority, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has clarified that  there is no option with the Police Officer, except to register the offence, when he is satisfied that complaint shows commission of a cognizable offence.

The Division Bench of Justice C.V. Bhadang and Justice Bharat Pandurang Deshpande was considering a matter wherein the informant,a College teacher, lodged a complaint at Deoni Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The informant claimed that on July 3,2019, he was wrongfully restrained by the Applicant and questioned as to why he was obstructing giving information under the Right to Information Act (RTI). It was alleged that the Applicant,a  lawyer, threatened the Informant with dire consequences and had a scuffle with him and obstructed him from performing his duty as a public servant.

The Informant appeared and filed his affidavit-in-reply refuting allegations made in the application. He claimed that he was restrained by the present Applicant from discharging his public duty and threatened with dire consequences, and hence he immediately lodged FIR. However since Applicant is practicing Advocate, Police did not register a crime immediately. The crime was registered against the Applicant only on July 7, 2019 and then investigation proceeded, which culminated in filing of the charge-sheet.

The Applicant’s counsel had contended that Section 353 of IPC was ressed into operation only with an intention to put the Applicant behind bar and to defame him in a false and malicious prosecution, due to the dispute between the younger sister of Applicant and nephew of the Informant. Applicant has also filed various applications under RTI, calling for the information which was the reason for filing false complaint against him by Informant.

On this issue, the Bench opined that a possibility of having a matrimonial dispute between the relations of the concerned party and filing of application under RTI, was only a ground raised in the present petition in order to challenge the FIR and consequently the charge-sheet under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 

It was asserted by the Court that invoking provision of Section 353 of IPC by the Investigating Agency was on the basis of the duty performed by the Informant as a Teacher in a Government Aided School. He was proceeding to attend 12th Standard Science class in order to teach students, which is prima-facie considered as performing a public duty.

The Bench opined that the FIR lodged by Informant, being a public servant, did constitute a cognizable offence and therefore it was incumbent upon the Officer In-charge of the Police Station to register the FIR. The investigation carried out by the Police Authority showed statements of eye-witnesses, which prima-facie corroborated the contents of the complaint, noted the Bench.Referring to the judgment of the Top Court in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Choudhari Bhajanlal and Others, the Bench said, “Keeping in mind above proposition laid down by the Honble Apex Court a Police Officer is duty bound to register a crime, when complaint discloses ingredients of cognizable offence.” 

Not only this, but the Bench also noticed that the Applicant was very much present in the School premises, he met the Informant in the School ground and there were witnesses, whose statements were recorded by the Investigating Agency showing prima-facie that some incident occurred between the Applicant and the Informant. Thus, at this stage it couldnot be stated that the complaint filed by Informant, was a false complaint, held the Bench. Thus, keeping these aspects in view, the Bench dismissed the application for quashing the FIR and consequent pending proceedings.