ORDER
Crl. W. 693/97
1. We have gone through the affidavits exchanged by the parties.
2. The petitioner was retained for performing pooja in Swarag Ashram Mandir near LIG FLATS, G-8 Area, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi by the Hariram Satsang Trust (Regd). The petitioner states that a room in the Mandir premises was in his occupation. Due to ill-health, he got two months leave from the Trust. On return when he wanted to collect his valuable and other important documents from the room, which he had been using, it was found that all valuables and other important documents are missing, including cash of Rs 5000/-. On 6.6.1997, complaint (Annexure P-1) was handed over to the Station House Officer, Police Station Hari Nagar. Representation dated 26.8.1997 (Annexure P-II) was also sent. As no action was taken thereon, the petitioner sought direction in this petition against respondent No. 1 for registration of case and investigation as per law.
3. Respondent No.1 in reply stated that the Petitioner was a Poojari in the Ashram and was performing Pooja and doing some other religious works in nearby area. On receipt of complaint inquiry was made, which revealed that he was not residing in Mandir premises but was residing in Vikas Puri. On 1.6.1997, complaint dated 31.5.1997 was also received from the President of the Ashram that after December 1996 the petitioner had not come to perform Pooja. Intimation was received from his daughter on telephone that due to ill health, the petitioner will not be able to come and some alternative arrangements be made by the Ashram. In March 1997, petitioner along with some of his relations came to tbe Ashram and demanded money for the services rendered by him earlier, whereupon some arguments were exchanged between the petitioner and President of the Trust. The petitioner thereafter left the Ashram threatening the President. On 27.5.1997, the President of the Trust received another telephonic call from the petiole demanding Rs 11,000/-. It is stated in reply of respondent No.1 that the complaint dated 6.6.1997 was in retaliation to the complaint dated 31.5.1997 received on 1.6.1997 from the President of the Trust. Both the complaints were duly inquired into and during inquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner performed only Pooja and never resided in the premises of the said Mandir.
4. We need not go into the merits of the stand taken by respondents 2 & 3 in their affidavit and the petitioner’s case. Inasmuch as only we are called upon in this petition to see that whether on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint, FIR ought to have been registered by the police or not. Though in the petitioner’s complaint dated 6.6.1997 it was also stated that he had filed labour case against the employer for a claim of Rs. 700,000/- which was pending in Labour Court and two persons who are stated to have removed the valuables and threatened him either to withdraw the complaint or to make settlement, for which the petitioner now, in his latest affidavit, states that he only con-tem plated to file labour case for which instructions were imparted to the lawyer but the case was not filed.
Irrespective of these allegations, made in complaint dated 6.6.1997, which the petitioner now states that the same are not correct. What is stated in para 4 of the complaint itself was sufficient to enable respondent No. 1 to register a case and investigate the same in accordance with law as the same definitely disclose commission of cognizable offences.
5. The stand of respondent No.1 that verifications were made on the complaint of Respondent No. 2 dated 31.5.1997 which was received on 1.6.1997 from the President of the Trust and on the petitioner’s complaint dated 6.6.1997, which revealed that the petitioner was not residing in the Mandir premises. therefore, no action was taken thereupon, itself cannot have the effect of absolving respondent No.1 of its legal obligation of registering a regular case. The complaint of the President of the Trust, on the other hand states that for doing independent work, besides performing Pooja the petitioner was permitted to use Mandir premises. The question that which part of the Mandir premises the petitioner had been using, whether the Petitioner had kept valuable articles in the Mandir or whether he had kept cash of Rs. 5000/- which he found missing when he wanted to take the same back, would be questions which can be ascertained only on carrying out regular investigation after registration of the case.
6. In view of the above, we are of the view that direction deserves to be issued to respondent No. 1 to register FIR on the basis of petitioner’s complaint dated 6.6.1997 (Annexure P-I) and carry out investigation in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
7. Issuance of above directions will not prevent respondent No. 1 from registering FIR on the basis of the complaint of President of the Trust dated 31.5.1997 also and to carry out investigation in both cases simultaneously in accordance with law.