Sindhu Janak V State of Maharashtra SC 2023

This is a True Court Copy™ of the judgment as appearing on the Court website.
MANU/SCOR/98123/2023 : Downloaded from www.manupatra.com

Printed on : 26 Jan 2024 Printed for : Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION a
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2023

(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5883 of 2020)
SINDHU JANAK NAGARGOJE ..... APPELLANT(S) b
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ..... RESPONDENT(S)
c
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is directed against the impugned order dated d
05.10.2020 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 817 of 2020 by the
High Court at Bombay, Appellate Side, Bench at Aurangabad, whereby
the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the
e
appellant – Sindhu Janak Nagargoje seeking directions to register
the offence as per the complaints submitted by the appellant.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that

f
the deceased Shivaji Bangar, brother of the appellant was severely
beaten and brutally assaulted by the accused on 02.04.2020 and he
succumbed to injuries on 03.04.2020. Thereafter on 05.04.2020, the
appellant and others had gone to the concerned police station to g
register the crime, however the same was not registered. The
appellant thereafter submitted the complaints on 06.05.2020 and
12.06.2020 to the concerned respondents however no action was taken

h
to register the complaint.
a
The appellant - Sindhu Janak Nagargoje, therefore, approached
the High Court by way of the Writ Petition, which has been
dismissed by the impugned order.
In view of the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in b
the case of “Lalita Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,”
reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, we are of the opinion that the
registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of CrPC, if the c
information discloses commission of cognizable offence. We may
reiterate summary of law stated therein: -
“120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: d
120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under

Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses
commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary
inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
120.2. If the information received does not disclose a

cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an
e
inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only
to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed
or not.
120.3 If the inquiry discloses the commission of a

cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In
cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the f
complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be
supplied to the first informant forthwith and not
later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief
for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
120.4 The police officer cannot avoid his duty of

registering offence if cognizable offence is
disclosed. Action must be taken against erring g
officers who do not register the FIR if information
received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
120.5 The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to

verify the veracity or otherwise of the information
received but only to ascertain whether the information
reveals any cognizable offence.
h
120.6 As to what type and in which cases preliminary
inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case. The category of cases
in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
(b) Commercial offences

(c) Medical negligence cases a
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in
initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3
months delay in reporting the matter without
satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not
exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant
preliminary inquiry. b
120.7 While ensuring and protecting the rights of the
accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry
should be made time bound and, in any case, it should
not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the
causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary
entry.
c
120.8 Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily
Diary is the record of all information received in a
police station, we direct that all information
relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in
registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be
mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said
Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary
inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.” d
In the instant case, the complaints submitted by the
appellant to the concerned respondents did disclose the commission
of cognizable offence and also the names of the alleged offenders. e
In that view of the matter, we allow the present appeal and
direct that the concerned respondents shall proceed further with
the complaints filed by the appellant in accordance with law.

f
The impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed in the
above terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

g
..................J.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI)
h
..................J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 08, 2023.
This is a True Court Copy of the order as appearing on the Court website.
TM
Publisher has only added the page para for convenience in referencing.

Sindhu Janak V State of Maharashtra SC 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sindhu Janak V State of Maharashtra SC 2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sindhu Janak V State of Maharashtra SC 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This is a True Court Copy™ of the judgment as appearing on the Court website.

MANU/SCOR/98123/2023 : Downloaded from www.manupatra.com

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2023

SINDHU JANAK NAGARGOJE ..... APPELLANT(S) b

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ..... RESPONDENT(S)

The appeal is directed against the impugned order dated d

05.10.2020 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 817 of 2020 by the

High Court at Bombay, Appellate Side, Bench at Aurangabad, whereby

the offence as per the complaints submitted by the appellant.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that

beaten and brutally assaulted by the accused on 02.04.2020 and he

succumbed to injuries on 03.04.2020. Thereafter on 05.04.2020, the

appellant and others had gone to the concerned police station to g

appellant thereafter submitted the complaints on 06.05.2020 and

12.06.2020 to the concerned respondents however no action was taken

dismissed by the impugned order.

In view of the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in b

reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, we are of the opinion that the

registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of CrPC, if the c

information discloses commission of cognizable offence. We may

reiterate summary of law stated therein: -

“120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: d

120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under

120.2. If the information received does not disclose a

120.3 If the inquiry discloses the commission of a

120.4 The police officer cannot avoid his duty of

120.5 The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to

(b) Commercial offences

In the instant case, the complaints submitted by the

appellant to the concerned respondents did disclose the commission

of cognizable offence and also the names of the alleged offenders. e

In that view of the matter, we allow the present appeal and

direct that the concerned respondents shall proceed further with

the complaints filed by the appellant in accordance with law.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

You might also like