JUDGMENT
Khan, J.
1. It was on 22.8.2001 that son of petitioner No. 1
and petitioner No. 2 were riding a motorcycle on Faiz
Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. One Traffic Zonal Officer
ASI Dharam Pal allegedly caught hold of the handle of
motorcycle and also the hands of petitioner No. 2 and as
a result, both riders fell down and sustained grievous
injuries. They were admitted to Ram Manohar Lohia
Hospital. While son of petitioner No. 1 succumbed to
injuries, petitioner No. 2 survived. The brother of the
deceased lodged complaints with Police Commissioner and
other authorities but no action was allegedly taken in
the matter. On the contrary, FIR No. 199/2001 was
registered under Section 279/333 IPC at PS D.B.G. Road against two
riders.
2. Petitioners’ grievance is that even as their
complaint for registration of FIR against Traffic
Officer had gone abegging, SHO PS D.B.G. Road had
threatened them to compromise the matter or face dire
consequences. They were now being harassed and mentally
tortured by the police for pursuing their case. It is
accordingly prayed that SHO PS D.B.G. Road be directed to
register a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder
against ASI Dharam Pal and counter FIR No. 199/01 lodged
on his complaint be quashed.
3. Status report filed on behalf of respondent
says that FIR No. 199/01 was registered on the statement
of ASI Dharam Pal. Petitioners’ complaints are admitted
to have been received and examined by the Public
Grievance Cell of Central District Police but found
without any substance. It is denied that the concerned
SHO had extended any threats to petitioners for any
compromise.
4. Petitioners have filed a rejoinder repelling
the stand of respondent. They have also pleaded their
ignorance about the inquiry by Public Grievance Cell and
have reiterated their charge against the SHO concerned
of putting pressure on them for a compromise and
harassing them.
5. It is a beaten track that if an information is
laid before an officer or a police station, he is
saddled with duty to enter it in the prescribed form and
register a case and then to conduct an investigation
into the allegations made. Though he can make some
inquiry as to the commission of a cognizable offence but
he can’t examine the credibility, correctness or
reliability of the accusations made in the complaint.
so long as the complaint is not uncertain and it is not
entertaining any doubt on the commission of any
cognizable offence he has no option but to register the
FIR on the complaint where the facts narrated laid a
foundation for making out a cognizable offence.
6. In this conspectus it remained to be seen how
petitioners’ complaint was handled and treated. There
is no dispute that it had charged ASI Dharam Pal of
being instrumental for the fall of two motor cycle
riders resulting i n death of one of them and grievous
hurt to the other. It could not, therefore, be said
that the information put up before the concerned SHO
made the commission of a cognizable offence doubtful or
that it was vague or uncertain as to warrant no action
in the matter. Respondents’ stand that petitioners’
complaint was examined by Public Grievance Cell and was
found devoid of any substance is wholly misconceived and
irrelevant.
7. It is not understandable how the inquiry by
that Cell would justify the non-registration of a case
on the petitioners’ complaint which otherwise indicated
commission of a cognizable offence irrespective of the
correctness of the accusations. Such an inquiry by any
forum of police, it must be under-scored, had no such
sanctity in the eyes of law. It indeed fell outside the
scope and scheme of Chapters XII and XIV of Cr.P.C.
8. It requires to be made clear at this stage that
a police officer was not competent to conduct any
investigation of sorts on the complaint or to refer it
to any forum for testing its veracity or correctness or
substance before entering it in prescribed form and
registering a case. Or else, it would tantamount to
putting the cart before the horse, because the
registration of FIR had to precede the investigation and
not the vice versa.
9. We feel convinced that concerned SHO had failed
in the discharge of his duties to register the FIR
against ASI Dharam Pal on petitioners’ complaint. This,
therefore, appears to us to be a fit case in which he
should be directed to register a case under appropriate
sections of IPC. The petitioners may file a fresh copy
of complaint before him if it was not borne by police
station records. The concerned SHO is further directed
to hand over the record of this and also of rival FIR
No. 199/2001 to Joint Commissioner, in charge Crime Branch
of Delhi Police for further investigation which shall be
concluded expeditiously in both FIRs under his personal
supervision.
10. Petition is disposed of accordingly.
