1 31 wp.1673.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1673 OF 2010 Sunil Kumar Nandapal Lohriya @ Sunil Kumar Dutta. ... Petitioner Vs. Sunil Khaladkar and anr. ... Respondents ----- Mr. M.H.Ahooja for the Petitioner. Mr. V.M.Thorat for the Intervenor. Mr. P.A.Pol, PP for the State. ----- CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR and P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : 12 th October, 2010. P.C. 1 By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is prayed that Respondent No.1 be directed to register First Information Report in relation to the written complaint made by the Petitioner and take appropriate measures in accordance with law. It is also prayed that direction be issued to Respondent No.1 to seize all original documents from CIDCO Limited in the proceeding of CIDCO file in relation to Plot No. 187, Sector 20, Ulwe-Soankar, Navi Mumbai, admeasuring around 4200 sq. mtrs. and send the same to Forensic and Handwriting Expert Department to ascertain the truthfulness of the referred documents. In the alternative, it is prayed to transfer the complaint to State CID Unit, 2 31 wp.1673.10 Mumbai for proper and thorough investigation. 2 Insofar as the first relief is concerned, going by the written complaint made by the Petitioner on 15 th March, 2010 – Exhibit-I at page No.104 to 107 of the paper-book, which was followed by communication dated 23 rd March, 2010 – Exhibit-J at page No.111 and 112, we are in agreement with the grievance of the Petitioner that even though the said written complaint disclosed cognizable offence, the local police official has failed to register FIR. Indeed, from the reply affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer before this Court to counter the assertions made in the writ petition, it appears that the concerned police official proceeded to make some inquiry after receipt of the said complaint and has concluded that the matter is in the nature of civil dispute. We need not examine the material collected by the concerned official during such inquiry. For the time being, suffice it to observe that the written complaint dated 15 th March, 2010 discloses commission of cognizable offence. If so, the police official to whom the said complaint was addressed, namely, the Commissioner of Police ought to have instructed registration of FIR as the police is obliged to do so as soon as any information regarding commission of cognizable offence is disclosed. The case in hand, in our opinion, does not come under the excepted category so as to first undertake preliminary inquiry and then consider whether FIR should be registered or not. From the allegations in the written complaint, it is obvious that the grievance is not only with regard to the mis- 3 31 wp.1673.10 representation, but also breach of trust and having administered threat to the life and property of the Petitioner. These allegations by no standards can be coined as civil dispute between the parties. 3 In the circumstances, we direct the ACP, Crime Branch to register FIR on the basis of written complaint referred to above sent by the Petitioner and investigate into the same in accordance with law. The official who had conducted preliminary inquiry should not be associated with the said investigation. Instead, the ACP should ensure that the investigation is done independently and not placing reliance on the earlier report of the concerned police official. 4 Insofar as the relief in terms of prayer clause (b) is concerned, it will be open to the Investigating Agency after registration of the FIR to take such steps as may be required in accordance with law. We do not think it necessary to issue any direction to Respondent No.1 to seize original documents, which are in the office file of CIDCO Limited. If necessary, the Investigating Officer would take measures in that regard depending on the nature of material that would be collected during the investigation. 5 Insofar as alternative relief claimed in the petition of transferring the complaint to State CID Unit, Mumbai is concerned, in view of the arrangement referred to earlier, nothing survives for 4 31 wp.1673.10 consideration in that regard. 6 We make it clear that this order or the direction issued by us to register the FIR on the basis of written complaint is not an expression of opinion either way on the merits of the rival contentions. The Investigating Officer will be free to proceed in accordance with law after registration of FIR. 7 Petition disposed of on the above terms. [ P.D. KODE, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ]