1 19 wp.2670.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2670 OF 2010 Manish Ramniklal Sawla. ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ... Respondents ----- Mr. K.R.Tiwari i/b K.R. Tiwari and Company for the Petitioner. Mr. P.A.Pol, PP for the State. ----- CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR and P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : 28 th October, 2010. P.C. 1 The principal grievance of the Petitioner is that although his statement was recorded by the local police on 30 th August, 2010, which disclosed commission of cognizable offence as it was alleged that the named accused had visited residence of Petitioner’s father and threatened him with dire consequences and in fact on 29 th August, 2010, the named persons entered the house and physically assaulted the Petitioner’s father, brother and mother, the local police has not registered FIR in connection with the said complaint. 2 The offence of criminal intimidation with threat to cause death, in view of the notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra dated 10 th August, 1962 is considered as cognizable and 2 19 wp.2670.10 non-bailable offence. If it is so, the local police had hardly any choice, but to register the FIR and proceed with the investigation thereof in accordance with law. The argument of the learned Public Prosecutor is that the allegation in the statement of Petitioner as recorded on 30 th August, 2010, did not disclose cognizable offence for which reason the local police were justified in registering N.C. and left it to the discretion of the Petitioner to pursue his remedy, if he were so advised. That argument does not commend to us. We direct the local police to register FIR in connection with the complaint made by the Petitioner in his statement on 30 th August, 2010 as the local police was bound to adhere to the notification issued by the State Government dated 10 th August, 1962 until the same was to be recalled by the State Government or for that matter set aside by the appropriate Court. 3 It was also contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the allegations made in the statement dated 30 th August, 2010 was afterthought as it was so mentioned on the next day after the accused persons named by the Petitioner had already registered offence against the Petitioner. That argument will have to be stated to be rejected. The fact that the statement was recorded on subsequent day by itself cannot absolve the police official of his obligation to register the FIR if the statement recorded before him discloses cognizable offence. It is a different matter that after investigation the police official may take the view that the allegation is not substantiated and file appropriate report 3 19 wp.2670.10 before the concerned Court, but it is not open for the police official himself to assume that no case has been made out by the complainant. That is the domain of the concerned Court. We say so because it is not the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor before us that the matter on hand was covered by excepted category so as to permit the police official to make informal inquiry before registration of FIR. 4 In view of the above, this petition succeeds with the above directions. We hope and trust that the police official after registration of FIR will investigate the matter in accordance with law and report compliance to the concerned Court. [ P.D. KODE, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ]