Judgment · High Court

The petitioner claims title and possession in respect of certain lands situated in Dopperla Villadge. Alleging that his brothers who are claiming a share in the said property attacked him on 1.8.2008 and obstructed cultivation operations on the land, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the 2nd respondent requesting to take action against them and also to provide protection to him. However, the 2 nd respondent failed to register the case nor protection was provided to his life. It is alleged that on 03.08.2008 some of the supporters of his brothers held a panchayat in the village and took the signatures and thumb impressions of the petitioner and his sons forcibly on certain documents as well as blank papers and with the help of the 2nd respondent, the brothers of the petitioner had also occupied the property by force. In the circumstances, the the petitioner sent a detailed complaint dated 12.08.2008 by registered post to the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Since the respondents failed to respond, on 11.09.2008 the petitioner made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, requesting to inform the steps taken on his complaint. In response to the same, the 2nd respondent gave a reply dated 30.09.2008 stating that the petitioner has to approach the Civil Court since the dispute is of Civil in nature. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not taking any action on the complaint of the petitioner dated

02.08.2008 lodged before the 2nd respondent as well as the complaint dated 12.08.2008 sent by registered post to the 1st respondent on 13.08.2008 is arbitrary and illegal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents. When the information relating to commission of a cognizable offence is laid with the police, but no action in that behalf is taken, it is open to the complainant to send the substance of such information by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned. Under Section 154 (3) of Cr.P.C., the Superintendent of Police, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence he has to investigate the case either himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him. In the case on hand, the letter of the 2nd respondent – Station House Officer dated 30.09.2008 shows that he refused to register the FIR on the basis of the petitioner’s complaints on the ground that the allegations in the complaint are of civil in nature. The petitioner disputes the same and contends that the acts of his brothers and their supporters in taking the petitioner and his sons into custody and obtaining their signatures on blank papers forcibly and threatening them with dire consequences constitute commission of a cognizable offence and therefore the respondents ought to have registered a crime and investigate into the same. Admittedly the petitioner has also sent his complaint by registered post to the 1st respondent – Superintendent of Police. Therefore, under Section 154 (3) of Cr.P.C., the 1 st respondent is bound to examine whether the complaint of the petitioner disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence and thereupon the further action has to be taken. Since the 1st respondent failed to exercise the said statutory duty, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the complaint of the petitioner dated 12.08.2008 sent by registered post on 13.08.2008 and take appropriate action in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 14.11.2008 TSNR/gbs