1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 62 OF 2009 Shimnit Utsch India Private Ltd., with its registered office at 8th Floor, Regent Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021, Fax: (91-22) 6633 9404/5, E-Mail: postmaster@shimnitutsch.co.in and Branch Office at : 13/394, Dukes Villas, Ground Floor, near Goa Marriott Resort, Miramar, Panaji (Goa) 403 001. E-Mail: postmaster@shimnitutsch.co.in represented by : Mr. Ayan Ghosh, Operation Manager of Shimnit Utsch India Private Ltd. ...... Petitioner V e r s u s 1. State, 2. Officer-in-Charge of Panaji Police Station, Panaji Goa. ....... Respondents Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. H. Kankonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Respondents. 2 Coram :- R. M. SAVANT, J. Date :- 15th January, 2010. ORAL ORDER : This Revision is directed against the Order dated 13.11.2009 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Panaji, by which order the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code came to be rejected. The genesis of the application filed by the Petitioner lie in the fact that the Petitioner is the Concessionaire of the Government of Goa, in the matter of manufacturing, marketing and selling of the High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) for vehicles. The said HSRP regime is to be implemented by the State Government in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maninderjit Singh Bitta V/s Union of India and others reported in 2008(7) SCC 328. The Petitioner had approached the Panaji Police Station vide its complaint dated 12.9.2009 alleging the illegal manufacturing, marketing and selling of counterfeit "HSRP" in 3 the name of "Anti-Theft Registration Plates" in the State of Goa. The subject column of the complaint discloses that the complaint is directed against the following : 1. Varun Motors having shop No.6, Rich Vella Building, Navelim Road, Margao, Goa. 2. Stationery & General Stores having shop No.12-C, Our Lady of Guia Bldg, Vasco-Da-Gama, Goa. 3. Morris I. Da Costa House of Car Accessories having Shop No.1, Rafael Barreto Plaza, Opp. Collectorate Office, Margao. 4. Mrs. Priya Somani, Director - Utsav Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd., having office at E-1/12, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi - 110057. 5. Mr. Ravi Somani, Director - Utsav Safety System Pvt. Ltd., having office at E-1/12, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi - 110057. 6. Others unknown. It appears from the reply filed on behalf of the Respondents that a preliminary inquiry was carried out in the the allegations made in the said complaint and the police reached the conclusion that since the offence is allegedly committed within the jurisdiction of the Margao Police Station, 4 and taking cognizance of the said complaint, the Director of Transport Shri Arvind Loliyekar registered a FIR with the Margao Police Station on 17.09.2009. After registration of the said FIR, the representative of the Petitioner was informed vide letter dated 26.10.2009 that the FIR has already been registered on 17.09.2009 by Shri Arvind Loliyekar, the Director of Transport and, therefore, the complaint dated 12.9.2009 was filed. 2. The Petitioner aggrieved by the non-registering of its FIR by the Panaji Police Station, filed an application before the learned J.M.F.C., Panaji, invoking Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The facts of the complaint dated 12.09.2009 have been reiterated in the said application made under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the said application, a reply came to be filed by the Respondents. Para 2 of the said reply reads as follows :- “It is submitted that the contents of the Petition revealed that if at all any cognizable offence was made out the place of offence would be outside the jurisdiction of Panaji 5 Police Station i.e. Place of offence at Sr.No.1 & 3 was at Margao, at Sr.No.2 was at Vasco and at Sr. No.4 & 5 was at Delhi and there was no urgency to register the offence and transfer it to the jurisdiction of the above mentioned Police Station so also the places of offences were at different places other than the jurisdiction of Panaji Police Station and as such it was felt necessary to conduct preliminary enquiry into the Petition.” Para 6 reads as follows :- “It is submitted that the Petitioner had already submitted his complaint to the Director of Transport, Govt. of Goa, Panaji, vide Petition dated 10.08.2009 upon which the Directorate of Transport lodged the complaint, dated 15.09.2009 which was registered at Margao Police Station vide Cr.No.319/09, U/s.418, 420 r/w 34 IPC on 17.09.2009. Annexed hereto is the copy of said complaint marked as Ex-5”. Para 10 reads as follows :- “It is submitted that during the period of preliminary enquiry conducted into the Petition of Mr. Robert Moses, Representative of M/s Shimnit UTSCH India Pvt. Ltd. Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao, has already taken cognizance of Margao Police Station Cr. No.319/09, U/s.418, 420 r/w 34 IPC, on 17.09.2009 on the complaint of Shri Arvind Lolienkar, Director of Transport, Transport Department, Goa State on the same facts which were mentioned by the 6 Petitioner and registering another offence would have amounted to violation of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India which says that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once”. 3. The learned Magistrate considered the said application and by the impugned order dated 13.11.2009 has rejected the same. The gist of the reasoning of the learned Magistrate is that as per the complaint of the Petitioner the offence as alleged is committed in Margao, Vasco-Da-Gama, and New Delhi and, therefore, the crime has not been committed within the jurisdiction of the Panaji Police Station. The learned Magistrate has considered the fact that a FIR has already been registered at the Margao Police Station and therefore rejected the said application. 4. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the Petitioner by the learned Senior Counsel Shri Lotlikar that the Panaji Police Station could not have refused to register the complaint in view of the well settled position in law that the 7 police have no choice but to register the complaint and there can be no investigation, inquiry etc. at that stage. The learned Counsel in support of the said submission relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2006 (12) SCC page 229 where it has been held that Section 154 of the Code casts a statutory duty upon a police officer to register a case as disclosed in the complaint and then to proceed with the investigation and that if any information disclosing any cognizable offence is laid before the incharge of Police Station, such police officer has no other option except to register a case on the basis of such information. Reliance was also sought to be placed on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2007(1) SCC page 1 in the matter of Parkash Singh Badal & Anr. V/s State of Punjab and others, which reiterated the aforesaid position in law. The learned Counsel submitted that the fact that the complaint has been subsequently registered on 17.09.2009 could not be made a ground for rejection of the application of the Petitioner. 8 5. On behalf of the Respondents, the learned Public Prosecutor Shri Ferreira submitted that in the light of the facts that were disclosed in the complaint and upon preliminary inquiry, the fact that the offence was committed within the jurisdiction of the Panaji Police Station could not be faulted with. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that a preliminary inquiry can be conducted and for the said purpose relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Rajinder Singh Katoch V/s Chandigarh Administration & Others, 2007 (7) SCC page 302 wherein the Apex Court has held that though the officer is bound to register the FIR, if the allegations made give rise to the cognizable offence, yet, competent officer is not prevented to make a preliminary inquiry in the matter to find out truth behind the allegations so made. 6. Having heard the rival contentions, in my view, no case is made out by the Petitioner for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court against the impugned 9 order dated 13.11.2009. 7. As mentioned herein above, the complaint is directed against the parties who have their offices at Margao, Vasco and New Delhi. Therefore, the conclusion reached upon a preliminary inquiry conducted by the Panaji Police Station that the offences alleged to have been committed were within the jurisdiction of the Margao Police Station and, therefore, the Panaji Police Station would not have jurisdiction, in my view, cannot be found fault with. It would be pertinent to note that the FIR has been registered at the Margao Police Station by Shri Arvind Loliyekar, the Director of Transport on the basis of the complaint/notice which was given by the Petitioner abovenamed. Hence, the contents of the FIR as well as the application now filed under Section 156(3) are identical. Once FIR has been registered in respect of the offence of illegal manufacturing, marketing and selling etc., of HSRP at a Police Station in Goa, the said Police Station would be obliged to investigate the said offence even 10 if certain facts have taken place beyond its jurisdiction. The apprehension of the Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, that the Margao Police Station would investigate the offence only restricted to its jurisdiction, in my view, is mis-founded, and, therefore, on the said ground the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., cannot be entertained. 8. No doubt the conduct of the police in not registering the complaint on 12.9.2009 when it initially came to be lodged in the first blush appears to be in violation of the mandate of the law laid down by the Apex Court, but considering the fact which is borne out by the reply filed by the Respondents before the Magistrate as well as in this Court that they had conducted a preliminary inquiry and, thereafter, had reached the conclusion that the offence, if any, was committed not within jurisdiction of Panaji Police Station, as well as now taking into consideration the fact that a FIR has been lodged by the Director of Transport at Margao Police 11 Station, the action of the Respondents is justifiable. Though it was sought to be contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the complaint made by the Petitioner was not restricted to an area within the jurisdiction of Margao Police Station but the offence concerned covers the entire State of Goa, and therefore, the FIR at the behest of the Petitioner ought to be registered. In view of the fact that even if the offence has got ramifications all over the State, the Margao Police Station would be obliged to investigate into the same and, therefore, the said submission made on behalf of the Petitioner, has no merit. Needless to state that FIR's cannot be registered at each Police Station in Goa. 9. Having perused the record as well as the impugned order, in my view, the impugned order calls for no interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Criminal Revision Application is accordingly dismissed. R. M. SAVANT, J. at* 12