Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Meerabai w/o Sakaram Jadhav, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, alleging that despite lodging a report with the Shivaji Nagar police station and the Rural police station at Beed, which disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence, the police had not registered an offence against the named offenders. The petitioner initially sought a direction to the respondents to register an offence. However, at the outset, the petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the petition insofar as the relief for registration of FIR was concerned, and instead sought leave to amend the petition to incorporate a relief for issuance of a writ directing respondent no.2 (Superintendent of Police, Beed) to decide the petitioner's representation dated 10.10.2006, which was pending. The court granted leave to withdraw and amend. The representation was addressed to the Commissioner of Police. The court allowed the petition and directed the Commissioner of Police to transmit the representation to the Superintendent of Police, Beed, within two weeks, and the Superintendent of Police was directed to decide the representation in accordance with law. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Registration of FIR - Duty of Police - Section 154 CrPC - Petitioner alleged that police failed to register FIR despite complaint disclosing cognizable offence - Petitioner withdrew prayer for direction to register FIR and sought direction to decide representation - Court allowed withdrawal and directed Superintendent of Police to decide representation in accordance with law (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the court should direct the police to register an FIR based on a complaint disclosing a cognizable offence, or alternatively, direct the Superintendent of Police to decide the petitioner's pending representation.
Final Decision
Petition allowed. Commissioner of Police directed to transmit representation dated 10.10.2006 to Superintendent of Police, Beed within two weeks. Superintendent of Police directed to decide representation in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Duty of police to register FIR on cognizable offence
- Writ of mandamus for pending representation
- Withdrawal of petition for direction to register FIR
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 147
Criminal Writ Petition No.1090 of 2009
P.V. Hardas, Shrihari P. Davare
Mr N.K. Tungar for petitioner, Mr S.D. Kaldate, A.P.P. for respondent no.1
Meerabai w/o Sakaram Jadhav
The State of Maharashtra, The Superintendent of Police, Beed, The Police Inspector, Police Station Shivaji Nagar, Beed, The Police Inspector, Police Station Beed (Gramin), Dinkar s/o Kashinath Jadhav, Vijay s/o Dinkar Jadhav, Ajay s/o Dinkar Jadhav, Keshav s/o Narhari Gholap
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition seeking direction to police to register FIR or decide representation
Remedy Sought
Initially direction to register FIR; later amended to direction to decide representation dated 10.10.2006
Filing Reason
Police failed to register FIR despite complaint disclosing cognizable offence
Issues
Whether the court should direct registration of FIR when complaint discloses cognizable offence?
Whether the court can direct the Superintendent of Police to decide a pending representation?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw prayer for direction to register FIR and instead sought direction to decide representation.
Petitioner's counsel argued that representation dated 10.10.2006 was pending before the Commissioner of Police.
Ratio Decidendi
Where a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the police have a duty to register an FIR under Section 154 CrPC. However, if the petitioner withdraws the prayer for such direction, the court may instead direct the superior police officer to decide a pending representation regarding the complaint.
Judgment Excerpts
At the outset, Shri Tungar, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition insofar as relief which is sought at prayer clause (B) to the petition.
We accordingly allow this petition and direct the Commissioner of Police to transmit the representation of the petitioner dated 10.10.2006 to the respondent no.2 i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Beed, Taluka and District Beed for a decision in accordance with law.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No.1090 of 2009 before Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. At hearing, petitioner withdrew prayer for direction to register FIR and sought amendment to include direction to decide representation. Court granted leave, allowed amendment, and heard petition finally. Court directed transmission and decision of representation.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 154
