2002 (3) TMI 73 - HC - Central Excise

Court Orders Police to Register Case Promptly Upon Receiving Information of Offense

The court directed the police to register a case on the petitioners' complaint and conduct an investigation, emphasizing the duty to register a case upon ... Criminal law - FIR Issues: Failure to register FIR on petitioner's complaint, Dispute over proper procedure for raiding factory premises, Role of DCP in passing judgmentIssue 1: Failure to register FIR on petitioner's complaintThe petitioners, officials of the Excise Department, filed a petition seeking similar treatment as a factory owner who had lodged a complaint. The factory owner had complained about the petitioners' unauthorized entry and demanded Rs. 2 lacs from him. Despite the petitioners disclosing their identity and showing their authorization, the factory owner made calls to police officials, leading to the petitioners' detention. The police registered an FIR against the petitioners based on the factory owner's complaint but failed to take action on the petitioners' complaint. The petitioners argued that the police were obligated to register a case based on their information, regardless of credibility, as long as it disclosed a cognizable offense. The court emphasized that the police officer's duty is to register a case upon receiving information of a cognizable offense, without assessing the credibility of the information. Quoting a Supreme Court judgment, the court directed the police to register a case on the petitioners' complaint and conduct an investigation.Issue 2: Dispute over proper procedure for raiding factory premisesThe Dispute arose regarding the procedure followed by the petitioners in raiding the factory premises. The DCP's report stated that the petitioners did not follow proper procedure, as they did not show their identity cards or authorization letter during the raid. The DCP concluded that the petitioners' actions were improper, even though the factory owner was suspected of tax evasion. The court criticized the DCP for overstepping his role by passing judgment on the petitioners' conduct. The court emphasized that the registration of a case based on information is a statutory duty of the police officer and does not involve granting benefits to the complainant. The court held that the DCP's assessment of the petitioners' actions was beyond his jurisdiction.Issue 3: Role of DCP in passing judgmentThe DCP's report played a significant role in the case, as it raised concerns about the petitioners' conduct during the raid. The DCP criticized the petitioners for not following proper procedures and deemed their actions as improper. However, the court found fault with the DCP for assuming a judicial role and making judgments on the merits of the complaint. The court clarified that the registration of a case based on information is a statutory duty of the police officer and does not involve assessing the complainant's conduct. The court directed the police to register a case on the petitioners' complaint and instructed the Joint Commissioner, Crime Branch, to supervise the investigation in both cases. The court emphasized the importance of following legal procedures and refraining from passing judgments beyond one's jurisdiction.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of failure to register an FIR on the petitioners' complaint, the dispute over the raid procedure, and the role of the DCP in passing judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal complexities involved in the case.