JUDGMENT
Hemant Gupta, J.
1. On 15.12.2006, this Court disposed of petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Code”) with a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, to examine the application filed by the petitioner and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in civil suit filed by the petitioner, an injunction was granted but despite the injunction, he has been dispossessed. An application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code is pending but an argument was raised before this Court that such an application would not condone a criminal act or bar cognizance thereof. It was alleged that the police have conducted an inquiry/investigation without registration of any report, which is not permissible.
3. In pursuance of show cause notice, reply has been filed wherein it has been stated that Deputy Superintendent of Police had conducted an inquiry. A copy of inquiry report dated 13.12.2006 has been produced as Annexure R-1. It has been stated therein that the petitioner vacated the house on 13.10.2006 in the presence of the Panchayat and he has received back the mortgage money from Gurnam Singh and himself took away all household goods. It was also found that the allegations leveled by the petitioner, his daughter and wife have been found to be false and, in fact, no such occurrence, as alleged by the complainant, has taken place. It has been further stated that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the Senior Superintendent of Police marked the application to the Deputy Superintendent of Police to inquire into the matter. Sub Inspector Maghar Singh, Police Station Longowal, was directed to conduct thorough inquiry. The detailed report was submitted on 27.01.2007 wherein Senior Superintendent of Police passed an order that it is a civil offence is made out.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the police authorities have carried out the investigation without lodging the First Information Report which is not permissible. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Ramesh Kumari v. State N.C.T. of Delhi and Ors. .
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and am unable to agree with the contention raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner.
6. At this stage, Section 154 of the Code is reproduced hereunder:
154. Information in cognizable cases- (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
(2) A copy of the information as recorded under Sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
(3) Any person, aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in Sub-section (1) may 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 (emphasis supplied), shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.
7. As per Section 154(3) of the Code, when the substance of information is sent to the Superintendent of Police, the First Information Report is required to be lodged only if the complaint discloses cognizable offence. Whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not, the police authorities are within their jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary inquiry to that limited extent before lodging first information report. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case reported as Shashikant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. 2007(1) S.C.C. 630 considered the question whether it was obligatory on the part of the Central Bureau of Investigation to lodge a First Information Report and carry out a full-fledged investigation about the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the anonymous complaint. The Court relied upon earlier judgments in State of U.P. v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi and P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras . The following extract is relevant:
23. Yet again in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) S.C.C. 335 this Court referred to P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras and Bhagwant Kishore Joshi in the following terms: (S.C.C. pp.371-72, paras 77-78).
77. In this connection, it will be appropriate to recall the views expressed by Mitter, J. in P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, in the following words: (S.C.C. p.601, para 17)
Before a public servant, whatever be his status, is publicly charged with acts of dishonesty which amount to serious misdemeanor or misconduct of the type alleged in this case and a first information is lodged against him, there must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations by a responsible officer. The lodging of such a report against a person specially one who like the appellant occupied the top position in a department, even if baseless, would do incalculable harm not only to the officer in particular but to the department he belonged to, in general. The means adopted no less than the end to be achieved must be impeaccable.
78. Madholkar, J. in a separate judgment in State of U.P. v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi, at p.86 while agreeing with the conclusion of Subhba Rao, J. (as he then was) has expressed his opinion stating (S.C.R. pp. 86-87)
In the absence of any prohibition in the Code, express or implied, I am of opinion that it is open to a police office to make preliminary enquiries before registering an offence and making a full-scale investigation into it.”
25. 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 C.B.I. Manual and in particular when it was required to inquire into the allegations 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….”
32. So far as the decision of the first respondent herein, not to register a regular case so as to take up an investigation into the allegations against the officers concerned, is concerned, the appellant may have to pursue his own remedy keeping in view the fact that the first respondent before this Court has furnished the details of its findings in the preliminary inquiry is also the result of the departmental proceedings initiated against the delinquent officers.
8. Similarly, in Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Chapter XXIV deals with registration of first information reports. Rule 24.1 spells out distinction of information covered by Section 154 of the Code which is required to be reduced in writing in the police daily diary. It is only investigation which raises a reasonable suspicion of the commission of a cognizable offence, action under Section 157 of the Code is necessary. Thus, if the information forwarded discloses a cognizable offence, then the investigations are required to be carried out after registration of FIR. What is required to be disclosed before registration of a First Information Report is a cognizable offence. The preliminary inquiry conducted by the respondents and the facts of the case shows that no cognizable offence is disclosed. Therefore, the stand of the respondents that it is a civil dispute cannot be said to be violative of any of the directions of this Court. This Court also in Crl. Misc. No. 19529-M of 2004 titled Smt. Garminder Kaur v. State of Punjab decided on August 05, 2004, has also dealt with the question whether the police before registering the First Information Report can conduct a preliminary inquiry to find out whether a cognizable offence has been committed or not. It was held to the following effect:
The police before registering a F.I.R. can conduct a preliminary inquiry to find out whether a cognizable offence has been committed or not. This aspect has been considered by a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Sanjeev Kumar v. Commissioner of Police 2002 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 261, wherein it was held as follows:
22. From the aforesaid precedents it is clear that following conclusions can conveniently be drawn: (i) whenever it is brought in writing or otherwise that a cognizable offence has been committed in terms of the decisions in the case of Bhajan Lal A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 604 a First Information Report should be recorded, (ii) if the information given is not clear or creates a doubt as to whether it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence some enquiry can precede before registration of the offence, (iii) in case of a complaint of such nature made against public servants it is doubtful or similarly if it is found that ex facie there is some un-truth in the same, an enquiry can be conducted before registration of the case, (iv) the enquiry need not partake that of a an investigation. It only is a preliminary enquiry that can be held….
(emphasis added) xx xxx xxx xxx
In the case of hand, the substance of the allegations made by the petitioner have been entered in the D.D.R. which is in compliance with the provisions of Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. However, on a preliminary inquiry conducted by the police, it has found no ground to register the F.I.R. It was observed that respondent No. 4 is an 80 years old person. Besides, the allegations as made did not disclose the commission of cognizable offence.
The above view is in tune with the earlier view of this Court.
9. In view of the above, I do not find that there is any willful disobedience of the directions of this Court. Consequently, present contempt petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.