Accused cannot be arrested soon after the registration of an FIR: Punjab & Haryana High Court

 on 31 10 CRM M No.2679201IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARHCRM M No.267920Date of Decision: 27.10.2020Hitesh Bhardwaj......Petitioner VsState of Punjab and others.....RespondentsCORAM: HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGHPresent:Mr. Abhinav Sood Advocatefor the petitioner.Mr. Ramdeep Pratap Singh D.A.G. Punjab.Mr. A.P.S. Deol Senior Advocate withMr. H.S. Deol Advocatefor respondent No.4. RAJ MOHAN SINGH J.The case was taken up for hearing through videoconferencing.CRM No.243820in addition tothe inquiry report of DSP City Batalaandspeaking order dated 30.07.2020 passed by the SeniorSuperintendent of Police Batala2[2].For the reasons mentioned in the application and in theinterest of justice the same is allowed. Additional documentsare taken on record subject to all just exceptions.Main case[3].Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking appropriatedirections to register a First Information Report in pursuance ofcriminalcomplaint dated 22.03.2020 filed by the petitioner inrespect of murder of Ramesh Kumari Bhardwajagainst private respondents No.4 to 8.[4].Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filedbefore respondent No.3 against respondent No.4respondent No.5respondent No.6and respondentsNo.7 and 8with the allegationsthat respondent No.4 was involved in the murder of his fatherSh. Deepak Bhardwaj for which FIR No.1213 wasregistered at Police Station Vasant Kunj South Police Station New Delhi. He faced trial for about seven years and wasacquitted. Now appeal against acquittal is pending in the DelhiHigh Court. Mother of petitioner was living with respondentNo.4. She succumbed to the demand of respondent No.4 forappointing him the Director in all the Companies of family. In the on 31 10 CRM M No.2679203year 2014 respondents No.4 and 5 forced the mother ofpetitioner to register a Will in favour of respondent No.4. TheWill was registered in a secret manner in favour of respondentNo.4. Later on mother of petitioner made a handwritten Will on22.02.2020 and this fact was told to the petitioner by his motherfew days before her murder. When respondent No.4 came toknow about this Will he was very much annoyed with themother. Mother of petitioner was very much afraid of respondentNo.4.would accompany her to Punjab.Respondents No.4 to 8 along with Sandeep and Balbir Singh(Balli) reached the house of respondents No.7 and 8 on08.03.2020 at midnight about 1.30 A.M. Respondent No.4insisted his mother not to sleep in common room rather to sleepin his room only. Respondent No.4 and his mother rested in oneroom whereas Balbir Singhand Sandeep slept in anotherroom. On 08.03.2020 when Balbir Singhwoke up at 7.00 on 31 10 CRM M No.2679204A.M. he found that mother of petitioner was not around. Heremained under the belief that she might have gonesomewhere. Having waited till 8.00 A.M. he inquired fromrespondent No.5 and respondent No.8 but they did not informhim properly. At about 10.00 A.M. Balbir Singhwasinformed by respondent No.4 that his mother suffered heartattack early in the morning and she was taken to Hospital inBatala. Thereafter Balbir Singhwas taken to AkalHospital by respondent No.4 to show the dead body of hismother. who were sleeping inadjacent room were not informed. Respondent No.6 was inDelhi for the last five years staying with his sisterbut on 08.03.2020 he went to Batala from Delhi.Complainant further alleged that he was not informed byrespondent No.4 in respect of alleged heart attack of his mother.Other relatives were also not informed. It was only Balbir Singh on 31 10 CRM M No.2679205(Balli) who made a telephonic call to the petitioner at about10.00 A.M. On 08.03.2020. It has been alleged that there was aconspiracy and foul play on behalf of private respondents inmurdering the mother of complainant.[7].Earlier the petitioner filed a petition bearing CRM MNo.163820 with the grievance that the Police is nottaking any action in the matter despite filing of complaint dated22.03.2020. The said petition was disposed of by the High Courtvide order dated 25.06.2020. The order reads as under: “1. Case is being taken up for hearing through VideoConferencing due to the outbreak of pandemic Covid 19. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that his parents weremurdered by none else than his brother i.e. respondentNo.4 but the police is not taking any action in the matterdespite complaint Annexure P 8 dated 22.03.2020. 3. Learned counsel states that the petitioner wouldbe satisfied if the petition is disposed of by directingrespondent No.3 to consider and decide the complaintAnnexure P 8 dated 22.03.2020 in accordance with law. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Harpreet Singh Multani DAG Punjab acceptsnotice on behalf of respondent No. 3 and states that he hasno objection to the limited prayer of the petitioner fordirecting respondent No.3 to consider and decide complaintAnnexure P 8 dated 22.03.2020 in accordance with law. 6. In view of the position as noted above the petitionis disposed of by directing respondent No.3 to consider and on 31 10 CRM M No.2679206decide the complaint Annexure P 8 dated 22.03.2020 inaccordance with law by taking into account instructions Annexures P 9 and P 10 in case the same are applicable.Petition disposed of as above.”(B.S. WALIA)25.06.2020 JUDGE”[8].The present petition has been filed for registration ofcriminal case against the private respondents in consonancewith the guidelines issued in compliance of Lalita Kumari vs.Govt. of U.P. and others 2013(4) R.C.R.979. Videorder dated 10.09.2020 learned State counsel was directed toplace on record copy of speaking order passed by respondentNo.3 in pursuance of order dated 25.06.2020 passed in CRM MNo.163820.[9].In compliance of the aforesaid order learned counselfor both the parties have placed on record the relevantdocuments. While disposing of earlier petition i.e. CRM MNo.163820 respondent No.3 was directed to considerand decide the complaint dated 22.03.2020 in accordance withlaw. Now this Court is obliged to see whether the order dated30.07.2020 passed by respondent No.3 is in accordance withlaw and satisfies the instructions guidelines on the subject.7petitioner to visit Batala. Mother of petitioner sensing callousattitude of private respondents insisted that Sandeepand one Balbir Singhshould accompany her toPunjab. Thereafter all the private respondents along withSandeep and Balbit Singhwent to Batala. Balbir Singh(Balli) ultimately found the death of mother of petitioner in themanner as disclosed in the preceding paragraph. Postmortem ofmother of the petitioner was conducted on 08.03.2020 itself atBatala. Petitioner made a complaint to respondent No.3 on22.03.2020 in relation to commission of offence of criminalconspiracy and murder of his mother. Petitioner raised varioussuspicious circumstances before respondent No.3. Notice underSection 160 Cr.P.C. was issued to the petitioner to attend theoffice of DSP City Batala on 15 16 18 19.05.2020 at any time inthe morning in connection with inquiry of complaint filed by him.Petitioner was required to accompany his wife Samita NareshKumar Balbir Singh Bali Sandeep Singh Kunwar Pramod Vineet and Mahesh. During the inquiry statements of thepetitioner and others were recorded on 20.05.2020. Statementsof Balbir Singhand Sandeep were also recorded.he along withothers proceeded to Batala in two vehicles. They reached atBatala at about 1.30 A.M. in the in laws house of respondent on 31 10 CRM M No.2679208No.4. They had milk in the night and at about 2.00 A.M. theywent to sleep. Balbir Singhand Sandeep were sent inroom built behind the house. In the morning at about 6.00 6.30A.M. both woke up and maid servant gave them tea. Whenswitch of the geyser in the bathroom was not found then BalbirSinghwent to the house and asked mother in law ofrespondent No.4 about the same. Balbir Singhdid notfind any sign in the house that any big incident had taken placein the morning at about 6.00 A.M. At about 9.00 A.M. respondent No.4 came to the house and disclosed to BalbirSinghthat his mother had heart attack in the morning andshe died. Balbir Singhstarted crying and askedrespondent No.4 to take him to the mother. At about 9.30 A.M. Balbir Singhand respondent No.4 went to the Hospitaland on the way he informed the petitioner about death of hismother. At about 10.00 A.M. they reached Akal Hospital andfound that dead body of mother of the petitioner was lying on abed. Balbir Singhinsisted to take the dead body to Delhiin an ambulance. Respondent No.4 stated that prior to leavingfor Delhi they have to get the body packed and till such timethey should go to fetch goods and Sandeep from the house.Similar statement of Sandeep was also recorded. 9taken to Akal Hospital where the Doctor had told that she wasserious. He came back to the house to pick Balbir Singhnamely Naresh Anil cousin(s) namely Ramesh Kishan petitioner and including himself discussed the familybusiness. Petitioner insisted not to use the Will as they willpartition the family business between them.atabout 6.00 A.M. in the morning Mata Ramesh Kumari Bhardwajwoke up and was walking outside the house. Respondent No.8went to do her prayers in the lobby. Ramesh Kumari Bhardwajfell down and on hearing the sound respondent No.8 went toher and then she informed respondents No.4 and 5.Respondent No.7 also woke up. Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj had 1 on 31 10 CRM M No.26792010a heart attack and they took her to Dr. Gosain Hospital in thecar. The Doctor checked her and gave her first aid and toldthem that condition of the patient was critical. They should takeher to some other Hospital. They took her to Akal Hospital where the Doctor checked her and admitted her. Aftersometime the Doctor informed that she had died due to theheart attack. They took her dead body to Civil Hospital wherepostmortem was done. On the statement of respondent No.6 proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were conducted byPolice Station Civil Lines Batala. Thereafter they went to Delhialong with the dead body where the dead body was cremated.[14].As per statement of Dr. Rajbir Singh Bajwa he isrunning Akal Hospital Gurdaspur road in Batala. On08.03.2020 at about 6.00 A.M. Pritpal Singh owner of theHospital was telephonically informed by respondent No.7 thathis relatives have come from Delhi. Out of them an old womanwas not well. They wanted to get her checked up. About 15mins. thereafter they brought the old woman in a car to theHospital. Hospital staff checked the woman in the Car itself andinformed Dr. Rajbir Singh Bajwa telephonically that pulse of thepatient could not be found and the body was also cold. TheDoctor directed the staff to refer the patient to Civil Hospital Batala. The patient was neither given treatment in Akal Hospital 1 on 31 10 CRM M No.26792011nor any medicine was administered to her.[15].Statement of one Gurbag Singh was also recorded tothe effect that he is a Pharmacist in Akal Hospital. On08.03.2020 2 3 persons brought an old lady in a vehicle. Hechecked the patient in the vehicle itself whose pulse was notfound and the body was cold. He informed Dr. Rajbir SinghBajwa about the patient who in turn asked him that the patientbe referred to Civil Hospital Batala because Akal Hospital isonly a surgical centre. Thereafter the patient was taken to CivilHospital Batala by her family members. Patient was not treatedin Akal Hospital nor any medicine was administered to her.Statement of Pritpal Singh was also recorded to the same effectthat the patient was neither given any treatment and medicine inAkal Hospital and she was checked up in the vehicle only.[16].In the inquest proceedings statement of respondentNo.4 was recorded by the Police to the effect that they took themother to Akal Hospital where the Doctor told them that motherhad expired. His mother had died due to sudden heart attackand no one was responsible for that. Mishappening hadoccurred naturally and suddenly. Respondent No.4 did not wantto pursue any legal proceedings against anyone. As perchemical examination report no poison was detected in theexhibits. As per pathology report of the deceased her heart was 1 on 31 10 CRM M No.26792012found to be 225 gm. LV wall thickness was found to be 1.5 cm.Coronary artery showed atherosclerotic changes and Lumanpatent. Cause of death was found to be a sudden cardiac arrest.[17].An inquiry was got conducted by respondent No.3through DSP City Batala. During the inquiry it was found thatthere was a dispute regarding many documents relating to Willof deceased Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj. A registered Will wasexecuted in the year 2010 in which deceased Ramesh KumariBhardwaj had divided her property in equal shares to the tune of50% each in the names of both the sons. Another registeredWill was executed in the year 2014 in which she had given herproperty to respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 was in Jail in theyear 2014. Thereafter unregistered Will was executed byRamesh Kumari Bhardwaj on 22.02.2020 in which she onceagain divided her property in equal shares in the names ofpetitioner and respondent No.4. Petitioner and respondent No.4came to know about the aforesaid Wills after the death ofRamesh Kumari Bhardwaj. Respondent No.4 stated before theInquiry Officer that all the rituals regarding cremation ofdeceased Ramesh Kumari Bhardwaj were done by thepetitioner. Papers of the cremation ground suggested that thepetitioner himself had written heart attack as cause of death ofhis mother. 1 on 31 10 CRM M No.26792013[18].During inquiry investigation statement of respondentNo.4 was also recorded that both the brothers hadcompromised in the presence of respectables on 09.06.2020 inrespect of division of properties. Petitioner agreed tocompromise on the ground that he will get 50% share of thewhole properties but the compromise could not be materialized.The Inquiry Officer also relied upon proceedings under Section174 Cr.P.C. as well as medical opinion to conclude that from thesecret and declared investigation till date there was noevidence of murder of mother of petitioner. The cause of deathwas sudden cardiac arrest. On the basis of aforesaid reportdated 30.07.2020 submitted by the DSP City Batala respondent No.3 also passed a speaking order on 30.07.2020itself endorsing the report of DSP City Batala.[19].Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring toAnnexures P 16 to P 24 further submitted that statement ofrespondent No.4 runs contrary to the statement of Dr. RajbirBajwa Gurbaj Singh and Pritpal Singh to the extent that motherof petitioner was checked up in the car itself and was notadmitted in the Hospital. No treatment medicine was given toher in Akal Hospital. Balbir Singhand Sandeep were keptin dark in the house itself in respect of medical status of thedeceased. The inquest report is revolving around the solitary 1 on 31 10 CRM M No.26792014statement of respondent No.4 only.Cr.P.C. stood complied with.Delegatee of Respondent No.3 by exercising the powers underSection 154(3) Cr.P.C. proceeded to record the statements ofthe parties. He was required to satisfy himself with regard tocognizable offence for registration of FIR. Cr.P.C. Any observation made in the inquestproceedings would not operate as bar to the registration of FirstInformation Report. Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. deals with reportingof information to Police in cognizable offence and its power ofinvestigation. Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. deals with registration ofFIR by the Police Incharge of Police Station on receipt ofinformation in respect of cognizable offence. The provision castsa statutory duty on the Police Office to enter the substance ofsuch information in the prescribed form i.e. FIR. The Officer has 1 on 31 10 CRM M No.26792015no choice but to enter the substance of information as laidbefore him if it relates to commission of cognizable offence.The Police Officer cannot embark upon any elaborate inquiry toascertain the genuineness or reasonableness of suchinformation. He cannot refuse registration of a case. A discreetinquiry can be held if the complaint contains uncertain andindefinite allegations raising doubts about the commission ofcognizable offence. It is not open to the Police Officer toconduct full fledged inquiry into the merits reasonableness andcorrectness of the allegations and to assume the role of a TrialCourt in the process. The correctness or reasonableness of theinformation is not a condition precedent for registration of acase as the same was ascertainable upon investigation whichwas to follow under Section 156 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel reliedupon Abhay Nath Dubey vs. State of Delhi 2002(99) DLT114.[22].Learned counsel further submitted that in Bhajan Lalvs. State of Haryana AIR 1992 SC 604 the Hon ble Apex Courthas laid that at the state of registration of a crime on the basis ofinformation disclosing a cognizable offence the concernedPolice Officer cannot embark upon an inquiry as to whetherinformation laid before him by the informant is reliable andgenuine and to refuse registration of a case on that ground. It is 1 on 31 10 CRM M No.26792016manifestly clear that if the information disclosing cognizableoffence is laid before a Police Officer Incharge of a PoliceStation satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. then the Police Officer has no other option except to enter thesubstance thereof in the prescribed form that is to say toregister a case on the basis of such information.R.C.R.979 furthersubmitted that the guidelines framed by Ministry of Home Affairson the basis of aforesaid case have been overlooked byrespondent No.3 in not ordering registration of FIR. The orderdated 25.06.2020 passed by this Court in CRM M No.16384 of2020 was in the context of issuing directions to respondent No.3 1 on 31 10 CRM M No.26792017to consider and decide the complaint dated 22.03.2020 inaccordance with law.the reliability genuineness and credibility of the information arenot conditions precedent for registration of case. The intentionof the Legislature is to ensure prompt investigation of acognizable offence in accordance with law. There is nodiscretion left with the Police Officer to register or not to registeran FIR once information of a cognizable offence has beenplaced before him. Non registration of criminal case leads todilution of rules of law and lead to definite lawlessness which isdetrimental to the society as a whole. Even the action againsterring police officer is warranted in such circumstances in whichFIR is not registered in respect of cognizable offence. TheHon ble Apex Court has provided some exceptions to themandatory registration of FIR. If the information does notdisclose commission of cognizable offence but indicates thenecessity for an inquiry preliminary inquiry may be conductedonly to ascertain whether cognizable offence is made out or not.If the inquiry discloses cognizable offence the FIR be registered.In case preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint the 1 on 31 10 CRM M No.26792018information is required to be supplied to the complainant withinone week after disclosing the reasons in brief for closing thecomplaint and not proceeding further. The preliminary inquirycan be made in matrimonial disputes family disputes criminaloffences medical negligence cases corruption cases and caseswhere there is an abnormal delay in initiating criminalprosecution for more than three months in reporting the matterwithout satisfactory explanation for the delay. The preliminaryinquiry has to be completed within seven days and the delay ifany should be reflected in the general daily diary of the PoliceStation.[27].If a person has a grievance that the Police is notregistering the First Information Report under Section 154Cr.P.C then he can approach the Sr. Superintendent of Policeunder Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by way of filing a representation inwriting. If such representation does not yield any satisfactoryresult and the FIR is not registered then it would be open to theaggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3)Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned. On receipt of suchapplication under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the Magistrate candirect for registration of FIR. The Magistrate can also monitorthe investigation to ensure an appropriate investigation. TheHon ble Apex Court has explained the position of law in Madhu 1 on 31 10 CRM M No.26792019Bala vs. Suresh Kumar 1997(3) R.C.R.679.Cr.P.C. would further makeit abundantly clear that no information of commission ofcognizable offence can be ignored. The aforesaid provision wasadded by way of amendment revealing the intention of theLegislature to ensure to take action as the inaction would resultin unjustified protection of the offender. The expression esunius est exclusion alterious is fully applicable to the 2 on 31 10 CRM M No.26792020interpretation attached with Section 154 Cr.P.C. which meansthat expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Themandate of recording the information in writing excludes thepossibility of not recording the information of commission of acognizable offence in the special register. Therefore conductingthe investigation into an offence after registration of FIR underSection 154 Cr.P.C. is the procedure established by law and thesame is in conformity with Article 21 of the Constitution of India.Right of the accused for speedy trial would come into being onlyafter registration of FIR and after conducting the investigation inaccordance with law. Preliminary inquiry is different than theinvestigation. Inquiry is other than a trial which is relatable to ajudicial act and not to the steps take by the Police towardsinvestigation after registration of FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C.Concept of preliminary inquiry may be a special procedureprescribed under CBI Manual to be read with Section 154Cr.P.C. Preliminary inquiry is contained in Chapter IX of theCrime Manual of CBI but the same is not a statute. It has notbeen enacted by the Legislature rather the same is anadministrative order for internal guidance of the CBI officers.The aforesaid administrative order cannot supersede the Codeof Criminal Procedure and the said analogy of conductingpreliminary inquiry as recorded in CBM Crime Manual cannot berelied to import such a concept in the scheme of Code of 2 on 31 10 CRM M No.26792021Criminal Procedure. The Central Bureau of Investigation is thecreation of Special Act i.e. The Delhi Special PoliceEstablishment Act 1946 and it derives its power to investigatethe offence from the said Act only. Scheme of Code of CriminalProcedure is different. Though the provisions in terms of Section(2) andof Code of Criminal Procedure permit specialprocedure to be followed for Special Acts.Cr.P.C. Thus thecommission of a cognizable offence is not only required to bebrought to the notice of the Investigating Agency but it has tobe brought to the notice of the Magistrate as well. There are twotypes of FIRs i.e. the FIR which is duly signed by thecomplainant under Section 154(1) Cr.P.C and the second typeof FIR could be the FIR which is registered by the Police itselfon any information received or other than by way of aninformant and even this information has to be duly recorded andthe copy thereof should be sent to the Magistrate forthwithunder Section 157(1) Cr.P.C. In view of aforesaid it would beobligatory on the part of Police to register FIR either on the 2 on 31 10 CRM M No.26792022basis of information submitted by the informant under Section151(1) Cr.P.C. or otherwise under Section 157(1) Cr.P.C.[31].Registration of FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. andarrest of the accused are entirely different things. The arrest ofthe accused is not automatic on registration of an FIR. Thearrest cannot be made in a routine manner on a mere allegationof commission of an offence. It would be prudent for a PoliceOfficer not to arrest a person without a reasonable satisfactionafter some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fide ofa complaint and reasonable belief in the context of complicity ofthe accused. The arrest of person and registration of FIR arenot directly linked as both have two concepts operating underdifferent parameters. Misuse of aforesaid concept would resultin action against the Police Officer under Section 166 IPC.[32].Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154Cr.P.C. if the information discloses commission of a cognizableoffence. No preliminary inquiry is permitted in such a situation.Preliminary inquiry can be conducted in matrimonial cases caserelating to family disputes commercial offences medicalnegligence cases corruption cases and the cases where thereis abnormal delay of more than 3 months in initiating criminalprosecution or reporting the matter to the police withoutsatisfactory explanation. The conclusions drawn in Lalita 2 on 31 10 CRM M No.26792023Kumari s caseare reproduced hereasunder: “111) In view of the aforesaid discussion we hold: i) Registration of FIR is mandatory underSection 154 of the Code if the informationdiscloses commission of a cognizable offence andno preliminary inquiry is permissible in such asituation. ii)If the information received does notdisclose a cognizable offence but indicates thenecessity for an inquiry a preliminary inquiry maybe conducted only to ascertain whethercognizable offence is disclosed or not. iii)If the inquiry discloses the commission ofa cognizable offence the FIR must be registered.In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closingthe complaint a copy of the entry of such closuremust be supplied to the first informant forthwithand not later than one week. It must disclosereasons in brief for closing the complaint and notproceeding further.iv)The police officer cannot avoid his dutyof registering offence if cognizable offence isdisclosed. Action must be taken against erringofficers who do not register the FIR if informationreceived by him discloses a cognizable offence. v)The scope of preliminary inquiry is not toverify the veracity or otherwise of the informationreceived but only to ascertain whether theinformation reveals any cognizable offence. vi)As to what type and in which casespreliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend 2 on 31 10 CRM M No.26792024on the facts and circumstances of each case. Thecategory of cases in which preliminary inquiry maybe made are as under: a) Matrimonial disputes family disputes b) Commercial offences c) Medical negligence cases d) Corruption cases e) Cases where there is abnormaldelay laches in initiating criminal prosecution forexample over 3 months delay in reporting thematter without satisfactorily explaining the reasonsfor delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations andnot exhaustive of all conditions which may warrantpreliminary inquiry. vii)While ensuring and protecting the rightsof the accused and the complainant a preliminaryinquiry should be made time bound and in anycase it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of suchdelay and the causes of it must be reflected in theGeneral Diary entry. viii)Since the General Diary StationDiary Daily Diary is the record of all informationreceived in a police station we direct that allinformation relating to cognizable offences whether resulting in registration of FIR or leadingto an inquiry must be mandatorily andmeticulously reflected in the said Diary and thedecision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must alsobe reflected as mentioned above.”25filed by the petitioner the Deputy Superintendent of Police i.e.Delegatee of respondent No.3 issued notices to complainantparty and recorded statements of various persons. The PoliceOfficer cannot embark upon any elaborate inquiry to ascertaingenuineness or reasonableness of the information and cannotrefuse registration of criminal case. It does not lie under thedomain of Police Officer to substitute preliminary detailed inquirywith the investigation of the case as the investigation can onlybe done after registration of an FIR.[34].In view of aforesaid legal position refusal to register anFIR is not in accordance with law. It would be prerogative of thePolice to file cancellation of the FIR after investigation inaccordance with law. In such eventuality the complainant wouldbe having a right to file protest petition on receipt of notice fromthe Court. Thereafter the Court may accept the cancellationreport or proceed with the case as a criminal case on receipt ofpreliminary evidence or may pass any other order in accordancewith law including further investigation. 26law. Registration of FIR in itself would not be construed tomean any final opinion about the case. Police would investigatethe offence in a lawful manner and thereafter would act inaccordance with the Code. (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)October 27 2020 JUDGEAtikWhether speaking reasonedYes NoWhether reportableYes No 

Summary: When a complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence while filing an FIR, the arrest cannot be merely done though registration of an FIR is mandatory under section 154 of CrPC and mere allegation of commission of an offence cannot amount to an arrest. This remarkable judgement was passed by the Punjab &amp; Haryana High Court by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Raj Mohan Singh in the matter of Hitesh Bhardwaj versus State of Punjab and others [CRM-M No. 26794 of 2020 (O&amp;M)]. Compulsory registration is requiring of an FIR is not only to ensure transparency in the criminal justice delivery system, but it also ensures judicial oversight as the Police Officer has to inform the Magistrate about lodging of an FIR forthwith in terms of Section 157(1) CrPC. Also the cognisable offence is to be brought before the investigating officer as well as before the Magistrate to maintain a transparent environment. This court differentiated between preliminary enquiry and an investigation stating that “Preliminary inquiry is different than the investigation. Inquiry is other than a trial which is relatable to a judicial act and not to the steps taken by the Police towards investigation after registration of FIR under Section 154 CrPC. Concept of preliminary inquiry may be a special procedure prescribed under CBI Manual to be read with Section 154 CrPC. Preliminary inquiry is contained in Chapter IX of the Crime Manual of CBI, but the same is not a statute. It has not been enacted by the Legislature, rather the same is an administrative order for internal guidance of the CBI officers.” The court dictated that preliminary inquiry can be done in cases like matrimony, cases relating to family dispute, offences related to commercial acts, in case of medical negligence, corruption cases, cases which suffer abnormal delay of more than three months in initiating criminal prosecution or reporting the matter to the police without satisfactory explanation. This court contented that “The Police Officer cannot embark upon any elaborate inquiry to ascertain genuineness or reasonableness of the information and cannot refuse registration of criminal case. It does not lie under the domain of Police Officer to substitute preliminary/detailed inquiry with the investigation of the case, as the investigation can only be done after registration of an FIR.”