Departmental Action Against Police Authorities Cannot Be Initiated As Per SC Guidelines In Lalita Kumari Case Unless There Is Willful Neglect: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court has held that departmental action against police authorities cannot be initiated on the basis of the Supreme Court’s observation in Lalita Kumari v. State of UP (2014) unless there is willful neglect.
The Court stated that there was no necessity to initiate departmental action against a police officer for not registering an FIR. The Nagpur Bench noted that while the written complaint disclosed cognizable offences, the petitioners failed to explain why they had not approached the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for alternative relief. It was argued that Lalita Kumari (supra), unequivocally made clear by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court, that it is mandatory to register an FIR on the receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence.
A Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Vrushali V. Joshi observed, “In view of the said fact that, unless it is shown that there was willful neglect on the part of the police authorities, action could not be initiated against them on the basis of observations in Lalita Kumari (supra). We say that since preliminary enquiry has been made and an impression has been given to the Police that the matter is settled, we do not find that there is willful neglect, and therefore there is absolutely no necessity to direct the Police Commissioner to initiate departmental action against respondent no.2.”
Advocate T.D. Mandlekar appeared for the petitioners, while APP N. Joshi represented the respondents.
The petitioners sought directions against the police officers to investigate the complaints filed by the petitioners and register an FIR under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. by invoking the Constitutional powers of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The petition also sought directions against the Commissioner of Police to initiate departmental action against police officers for the ‘willful disobedience’ of the directions issued by the Supreme Court of India in Lalita Kumari v. State of UP (2014).
The petitioners alleged that the respondent had fraudulently mortgaged their residential property without any authority, thereby attempting to dispossess them from their homes. The petitioners argued that the mortgage deeds were executed without their consent, constituting a misuse of the power of attorney granted to the respondents.
The main grievance of the petitioners was based on the written complaint when the cognizable offence was transpiring and the FIR under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. was not registered by the police.
The Court observed that the complaint disclosed a civil angle due to the presence of certain executed documents, indicating potential misuse of the power of attorney rather than outright criminal fraud.“Statement appears to have been taken and the Police were given a picture that the matter is compromised, and therefore further action was not taken,” the Court noted.
“We are of the opinion that directions cannot be given under the writ jurisdiction of this Court to the police Authorities to register the FIR on the basis of the written, complaints filed by the petitioners before the Police. The petitioners would be at liberty to exhaust the said remedy.” the Court remarked.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Vishwas Shripad Deoskar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-NAG:7706-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates T.D. Mandlekar
Respondents: APP N. Joshi; Advocates U.M. Aurangabadkar, A.S. Deshpande and A.H. Lohiya