1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRI. WRIT PETITION NO.246 OF 2011 (Vitthalrao Vishwasrao Chavan and another ..vs.. The State of Maharashtra and others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri V.N. Patra, Advocate for the petitioners, Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for the respondents-State. CORAM : MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI AND M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATE : 24-06- 2011 . Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the respondents-State. 2. The petitioners and respondent No.5 are closely related. It was the case of the petitioners that respondent No.5 had cut the electric wire and stolen the same. He has also committed theft of oranges of Rs.50,000/- from the field of petitioner No.1. Though they approached the Police Station on both the occasions, the police did not register the F.I.R., hence, they have approached this Court with a prayer that directions be issued that the F.I.Rs. be registered against respondent No.5. 3. As far as this prayer is concerned, that direction be issued that F.I.R. be registered against respondent No.5, the learned Advocate has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others ..vs.. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604(1). Learned Counsel for the petitioners pointed out the observations in the 2 said case that if information disclosing cognizable offence is laid before a police officer, he has no option but to register a case on basis thereof. Thereafter in the very same judgment, it is observed that the condition which is sine qua non for recording a First Information Report is that there must be an information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence. However, the issue involved in this case is in what circumstances can F.I.R. be quashed. In the said case F.I.R. was already registered therefore, the Supreme Court was not considering the situation where a F.I.R. was not registered but only the issue when a F.I.R. can be quashed. 4. The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd., reported in (1992)4 SCC 363 has observed as under : “...... It is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment of this Court, divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to be the complete 'law' declared by this Court. The judgment must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the question which were before this Court. A decision of this Court takes its colour from the questions involved in the case in which it is rendered and while applying the decision to a later case, the Courts must carefully try to ascertain the true principle laid down by the decision of this Court and not to pick out words or sentences from the judgment, 3 divorced from the context of the questions under consideration by this Court to support their reasonings. In Madhav Rao Scindia vs. Union of India, this Court cautioned : “It is not proper to regard a word, a clause or a sentence occurring in a judgment of the Supreme Court, divorced from its context as containing a full exposition of the law on a question when the question did not even fall to be answered in that judgment.” In the above case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner no question arose for consideration in relation to non-registration of FIR, whereas, this question directly arose for consideration in Aleque Padamsee. 5. Then the learned Advocate for the petitioners relied on the decision in the case of Munna Lal ..vs.. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, reported in 1992 Cri.L.J.1558, wherein, it is observed that police have no option but to register F.I.R. if cognizable offence is disclosed. This is a decision by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, whereas the very same issue i.e. non-registration of FIR arose for consideration before the Supreme Court recently in the case of Aleque Padamsee and ors. .vs. Union of India and ors., reported in (2007)6 SCC 171. Being a decision of the Supreme Court, we are bound by the decision of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Aleque Padamsee has held that if information is given to the police regarding commission of cognizable offence and no action is taken by the police then proper remedy is to file a 4 complaint before the concerned Magistrate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that in such a case a writ petition is not to be entertained as there is a efficacious remedy available of filing a complaint before the Magistrate. The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition with the following direction. “If any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observed.” 7. In view of the above, it is open to the petitioner to adopt the aforesaid remedy. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners then pointed out that the petitioners have also prayed that disciplinary action be taken against the police officer, for not registering the F.I.R. As far this prayer is concerned, liberty is granted to the petitioners to move separately for the said relief. Writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE pma