1 wp2868.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Writ Petition No. 2868 of 2010 Kamlesh Ramgulab Yadav ..Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ..Respondents Mr. R.D. Suryawanshi i/b. Shailesh Shukla- advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.P. Adsule – APP for the State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ DATED :- DECEMBER 23, 2010. P.C. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned APP. 2. The grievance in this Petition is that although the complaint made by the Petitioner discloses cognizable offence, the police official for reasons best known to him proceeded to conduct some farce of enquiry and has not taken any effective in accordance with law. In support of the argument that 2 wp2868.10.sxw the complaint made by the Petitioner discloses cognizable offence, reliance is placed on the written communication given to the Senior Inspector of police dated 1st April, 2010 in which allegation regarding misappropriation, wrongful gain, misrepresentation and cheating has been mentioned. Reliance is also placed on the communication dated 17th August, 2010 sent to the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Joint Commissioner of Police, Senior Inspector of Police and Tilak Maharashtra University, Pune. Inspite of these two communications, which disclose commission of cognizable offence, the concerned police official did not think it necessary to register FIR which he was obliged to do in law. 3. The stand taken by the Learned APP is that the officer instead of straightway registering FIR, thought it appropriate to undertake preliminary enquiry. When called upon to explain as to how this case falls in excepted category so as to undertake preliminary enquiry before registration of FIR, no explanation is forthcoming. We called upon the the Learned APP to hand over the documents and material on which the Investigating Officer was relying to justify that he had taken steps in right earnest. 4. On going through the said record we are more than convinced that 3 wp2868.10.sxw the Investigating officer has taken the complaint in a very casual manner. The complaint is in respect of mis-representation, cheating and misappropriation of fees paid by student to the Ryan College of Engineering and Management at Goregaon (E). Needless to observe that even if the allegation in the complaint were to be found to be false and incorrect, that could be found out only after the registration of FIR upon collection of relevant material in that behalf. It is premature for the police official to assume that no case is made out by the Petitioner, so as to justify the inaction of the non-registration of FIR. The police officer who is present in Court was of the view that he would first record the statement of all concerned and then make up his mind as to whether FIR should be registered or otherwise. This approach to say the least cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. By now the law is well settled, that as soon as the information is received by the police officer disclosing commission of cognizable offence, it is his bounden duty to immediately register the FIR. It is only in excepted cases he has the power to undertake preliminary enquiry. As aforesaid, nothing has been shown from the record to treat the complaint of the Petitioner as falling under excepted category. In such a case the Investigating Officer was obliged to register the FIR and proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 4 wp2868.10.sxw 5. We accordingly direct the Respondents to forthwith register FIR on the basis of complaint made by the Petitioner and entrust the investigation to officer not below the rank of ACP. We hope and trust that the investigation of the case will be taken forward in accordance with law and to its logical end. 6. In view of the above, nothing survives for consideration in prayer clause (a). 7. Insofar as prayer clause (b) is concerned, Counsel for the Petitioner in all fairness submits that the said relief be left open to be pursued in appropriate proceedings. Accordingly, we express no opinion with regard to the said relief. 8. Insofar as prayer clause (c) is concerned, that will be matter for investigation and after investigation is complete, appropriate action as per law be proceeded against the concerned person. 9. Petition disposed of on the above terms. 5 wp2868.10.sxw 10. Copy of this order be forwarded to Secretary, Home Department to consider as to what action needs to be taken against PSI - Vijaykumar Laxman Jadhav, MIDC Police Station who was responsible for non- registration of FIR in respect of the complaint made by the Petitioner, though it disclosed cognizable offence. We hope and trust that the said action will be taken to its logical end. 11. We also place on record that documents produced by the police officer and TR book is returned back to the Learned APP. (A.P.BHANGALE, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)