2021 (12) TMI 1487 - HC - Indian Laws

Violation of principles of natural justice - registration of F.I.Rs in connection with the matrimonial offences without embarking upon any preliminary enquiry - HELD THAT - The judgment in THE STATE OF TELANGANA VERSUS HABIB ABDULLAH JEELANI AND ORS. 2017 (1) TMI 1683 - SUPREME COURT is not applicable in the present case since in that case the F.I.R. was registered under Sections 147,148,149 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The said case, therefore, did not come within the purview of paragraph 120.6 of the Lalita Kumari case - Though paragraph 120.6 does not suggest that preliminary enquiry is to be mandatorily held with regard to the types of cases mentioned therein, the investigating agencies should not be allowed to do away with the preliminary enquiry in such types of cases without any justifiable reason. The investigating agency in such cases ordinarily should conduct a preliminary enquiry unless it is not shown that immediate registration of FIR would defeat the very purpose of investigation or conducting a preliminary enquiry will be an empty formality. The State has failed to justify the registration of the F.I.Rs without conducting the preliminary enquiry in both the cases - Accordingly, it is directed that the concerned police shall conduct the preliminary enquiry, in both the cases, within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order and upon preliminary enquiry if it is found that there exists sufficient grounds to carry out a fullfledged investigation, they shall proceed with the investigation in terms of Section 156 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The two F.I.Rs shall be kept in abeyance till conclusion of the preliminary enquiry. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the police should conduct a preliminary enquiry before registering an FIR in matrimonial offences.
2. The interpretation and application of the Supreme Court’s mandate in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh.
3. The necessity and scope of preliminary enquiry in cases disclosing cognizable offences.
4. The discretion of the police in registering FIRs without preliminary enquiry.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the police should conduct a preliminary enquiry before registering an FIR in matrimonial offences:
The principal grievance in both cases was that the police registered FIRs related to matrimonial offences without conducting a preliminary enquiry, which the petitioners argued was mandated by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners contended that such preliminary enquiry was necessary to prevent false implications and unnecessary harassment.

2. The interpretation and application of the Supreme Court’s mandate in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh:
The court examined the directions issued in Lalita Kumari, specifically paragraph 120.6, which lists categories of cases where a preliminary enquiry may be conducted, including matrimonial disputes. The court noted that the Supreme Court's objective was to ward off false complaints and save accused persons from unnecessary harassment. The judgment emphasized that the scope of a preliminary enquiry is restricted to ascertaining whether the allegations prima facie constitute the alleged offence.

3. The necessity and scope of preliminary enquiry in cases disclosing cognizable offences:
The court discussed various judgments, including Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, highlighting the need for careful scrutiny in matrimonial disputes due to the high rate of false implications. The court also referred to Charansingh v. State of Maharashtra, which reiterated that a preliminary enquiry is desirable to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed. The court concluded that a preliminary enquiry should be conducted unless immediate registration of FIR is necessary to prevent the defeat of the investigation's purpose.

4. The discretion of the police in registering FIRs without preliminary enquiry:
The court noted the arguments of the opposite parties, who relied on judgments suggesting that preliminary enquiry is not mandatory if the information discloses a cognizable offence. However, the court disagreed, stating that the police should not bypass the preliminary enquiry without justifiable reasons. The court directed the police to conduct a preliminary enquiry within three weeks and proceed with the investigation only if sufficient grounds are found.

Conclusion:
The court directed that the concerned police conduct a preliminary enquiry in both cases within three weeks. If the preliminary enquiry reveals sufficient grounds for a full-fledged investigation, the police may proceed with the investigation. The FIRs were to be kept in abeyance until the conclusion of the preliminary enquiry. If the enquiry results in closing the complaint, the complainants must be informed within one week, with reasons for the closure. The revisional applications were disposed of accordingly.