Gurjit Singh vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.

This is a Crl. Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by Gurjit Singhpetitioner whereby he has prayed to this court that mandamus be issued directing respondent No. 2 (S.H.O. Police Station Khanna, District Ludhiana) to register FIR at his instance against Harjit Kaur w/o Baljinder Singh Sohal and Charanjit Singh Sohal s/o Sewa Singh residents of Sobal Niwas, Samrala Road, Near Railway Phatak, Khanna, District Ludhiana under Sections 420/471/468/506 IPC as they cheated him of a sum of Rs. 3 lacs by duping him into believing that he would be sent to Canada.

Petitioner has alleged that Harjit Kaur and Charanjit Singh Sohal, respondents 4 and 5 are travel agents working at Khanna sending people abroad from Punjab after taking huge amount from them. Petitioner''s father Darshan Singh contacted them at Khanna through one Amarjit Singh of village Kaial Mazra; Tehsil Samrala, Ludhiana for arranging visa for him (petitioner) for sending him to Canada. Respondents 4 & 5 told his father Darshan Singh that he should arrange Rs. 3 lacs and they would arrange visa within a month for sending him to Canada. His father was taken in by this assurance given by respondents 4 & 5. He agreed to pay them Rs. 2 lacs in advance and Rs. 1 lac after the petitioner reached Canada. On 15.12.96, Harjit Kaur came to the house of the petitioner to get Rs. 1 lac. His father Darshan Singh gave her Rs. 1 lac in the presence of Amarjit Singh, son of Nikka Singh. Harjit Kaur assured him and his father that visa would be arranged within a few days. Respondent No. 4 asked his father to arrange Rs. 1 lac more on 31.12.96. On 20.12.96, respondent No. 4 sent message through her servant at the house of the petitioner that visa had been issued in the name of the petitioner for Canada, and they should arrange money at the earliest. On 31.12.96, the petitioner and his father went to the house of respondent No. 4 alongwith Amatjit Singh and paid Rs. 1 lac more. No receipt was issued regarding the said amount by Harjit Kaur. She advised the petitioner to go to Delhi on 3.1.97 along with Charanjit Singh. At Delhi Charanjit Singh brought four tickets of Indian Airlines, i.e. one for the petitioner and two for other two girls and the fourth one for himself On 12.1.97, the petitioner came to know about the falsity of visa when that visa was checked up by the Indian Airlines authorities when the aeroplane was to take off for Canada. On being checked up, visa was found fabricated.

Petitioner was handed over to the Security Assistant, Air India, IGI Air Port, New Delhi. Case was registered against the petitioner at New Delhi, because of the fault of respondents No. 4 & 5. On 20.1.97, Harjit Kaur respondent No. 4 contacted the petitioner and his father and requested them not to take legal action against respondents No. 4 & 5. Respondent No. 4 agreed to return Rs. 2 lacs within 10 days. She paid Rs. 24,000/ only through her fatherinlaw Sewa Singh. Remaining amount of Rs. 1.76 lacs still remains unpaid. Rupees 35,000/ i.e. the amount spent in the purchase of tickets still remains unpaid to the petitioner. Petitioner went to PS Khanna with the aforesaid version and approached respondent no. 2 with the request to register case against respondents 4 & 5 as the aforesaid version was disclosing cognizable offence. SHO, PS Khanna remained unhinged and did not take any action against respondents 4 & 5. Petitioner did not relent. He sent complaint in writing Annexure P1 (copy) to SHO, PS Khanna on 1.3.97 with a view to his registering case against respondents 4 & 5 but to no effect. Complaint Annexure P1 was duly acknowledged by SHO, PS Khanna. He sent complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Khanna on 1.4.97 for action against respondents 4 & 5 but to no effect. He also sent complaint Annexure P4 to the U.S., Canadian and German Embassies at New Delhi which was duly acknowledged by U.S. Embassy vide acknowledgement Annexure P5. Petitioner prays that the refusal of respondents 2 & 3 in registering case against respondents 4 & 5 was arbitrary illegal, unwarranted and unconstitutional. Respondent No. 2 was bound to register case against respondents 4 & 5 when the version given by him was disclosing a cognizable offence. Respondent No. 3 was bound to direct respondent no. 2 to register case when the latter had refused registration of the case though registration of the case was warranted by the disclosure of facts made before him through Annexure P1. This is what the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed in State of Haryana & others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & others, AIR 1992 SC 604.

This Crl. Writ Petition has been opposed by respondent no. 3 who has filed written statement in the from of affidavit. He has urged that the petitioner never made complaint, either orally or in writing before the deponent. He never appeared for registration of a case against respondents 1 & 5. No complaint was received either by him or by any of his subordinates or officials of his office nor the same was received by PS City Khanna.

In State of Haryana & others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & others (supra), their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed that the condition which is sinequanon for recording an FIR is that there must be an information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence. If any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officerincharge of a police station satisfying the requirement of Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the said police officer has no other option but to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form i.e. to say to register a case on the basis of such information. At the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence in compliance with the mandate of Section 154(1) Cr.P.C., the concerned police officer cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refused to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. On the other hand, the officerincharge of a police station is statutorily obliged to register a case and then to proceed with the investigation if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 of the Code of investigate subject to the proviso of Section 157. In case an officerincharge of a police station refuses to exercise jurisdiction vested in him and to register a case on the information of a cognizable offence, reported and thereby violates the statutory duty cast upon him, the person aggrieved by such refusal can send the substance of the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned, who if, satisfied that the information forwarded to him discloses a cognizable offence, should either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him in the manner provided by subsection (3) of Section 154 of the Code. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the dictum of their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & others (supra), that if information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officerincharge of a police station, the said officer in charge of the police station has no option but to enter the substance thereof in the register known as FIR register i.e. he has to register case on the basis of such information.

Allegation made in complaint Annexure P1 to SHO, PS City Khanna are very serious which should not have been gone uninvestigated. So, this Cr.W.P. is allowed and mandamus is issued directing the respondent no. 2 i.e. SHO, PS City Khanna to register case on the basis of the version made by the petitioner as disclosed in Annexure P1. Case shall be investigated. If during investigation, the Investigating Officer feels that there are sufficient grounds made out for the arrest or respondents 4 & 5, he will not arrest them forthwith but will grant them 15 days time through notice in writing so that they are able to knock the door of the court and claim anticipatory bail.