Vimal Kumar Patel vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Sanjay Yadav, J.—Heard on admission. Petitioner seeks quashment of First Information Report dated 2.4.2013 and a direction to take appropriate action on the representation submitted by the petitioner on 16.4.2013 and further direction that impugned first information report be referred to an impartial agency like Crime Investigation Department or other competent police officer beyond the jurisdiction of S.D.O.(P) to establish its authenticity.

Petitioner is a complainant of an incident which took place on 2.4.2013; wherein allegedly one Meenabai got injured which led to lodging of an FIR for an offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 109/34 I.P.C. Contention of the petitioner is that an offence u/s 307 IPC ought to have been registered against the miscreants instead of registration of a lesser offence. It is further contended that the complaint was lodged by the petitioner on a plain paper and instead of treating the same as an F.I.R. a separate report has been prepared which does not bear the signature of complainant, which as per the petitioner has been forged. It is further contended that the same has been done to favour the culprits. On these allegations petitioner seeks quashment of F.I.R. dated 2.4.2013 and a direction that the same be referred to the Crime Investigation Department for its verification.

Sub-section (1) of Section 154 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 stipulates that 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. Subsection (2) provides that a copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.

Evidently to set the criminal machinery in motion F.I.R. is lodged with a view of setting he investigative process in motion. It does not constitute substantive evidence. (Please see Baldev Singh Vs. State of Punjab, paragraph 5]; wherein it is held that "......... first information report is not a substantial piece of evidence."

In the case at hand it is not in dispute that the petitioner, an informant, has been given the copy of F.I.R. recording therein the offences registered against alleged assailants. The said information has set the criminal machinery in motion. Merely because the petitioner thinks that the offence ought to have been registered u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code would not be a sufficient ground to doubt the F.I.R. Furthermore, there is no cogent material on record to believe the story which has been put-forth by the petitioner that the F.I.R. has been concocted.

In view whereof no interference is caused. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.