HYDERABAD: No person can straight away file a writ petition in the High Court without invoking the provisions of Sections 190 and 200 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) when the police fail to act on a complaint lodged by such person in respect of a crime. The only course left open to him/her is to approach magistrate concerned by invoking provisions of Chapter XV of the Code.
When an information is brought before the police about commission of any alleged offence, which is cognizable, the concerned police officer is duty bound to register the crime. If the police officer fails to register a crime, then the aggrieved party can resort to the provisions of Chapter XV of the Code and lodge a complaint before the magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of offence.
In Aleque Padamsee vs Union of India case, the Supreme Court has held that when the police fail to take action on the information laid before him, then the complainant under Section 190 and 200 of the CrPC lay the complaint before the concerned magistrate and the latter is required to enquire into such complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code.
After recording evidence, if the magistrate finds a prima facie case, then he is empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate into the offence and to submit a report. If he finds that the complainant does not disclose any offence to take further action, the magistrate is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the code. If the magistrate finds that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and could issue process to the accused, the Apex Court noted.
Failure to register crime
In one such a case, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable as the petitioner has not invoked the powers under Section 190 and 200 CrPC to file a complaint before the concerned magistrate when the police failed to take any action to the complaint lodged by him particularly in registering a crime.
The case of the petitioner is that he has applied for the post of marketing executive in a cooperative society. Having satisfied with his qualifications and work experience, he was given employment with a monthly salary along with TA and DA.
The nature of his job was to procure depositors and join them in the society and mobilize the deposits on daily, weekly and monthly basis. The society chairman and the board directors assured him that if the business is successful, they will enter into banking business apart from giving promotion and other benefits to him.
The chairman and society secretary forcibly took the signature of the petitioner on the blank papers and also on the letter pads of the society and kept in their custody.
Initially, salaries were paid for three months and thereafter, petitioner was made to work without paying any salary by threatening to foist false cases against him based on the signatures taken on the blank papers.
Since the payments are not being made to the depositors, news items were published in vernacular dailies and the depositors started pressurising the petitioner to return the deposits made by them.
The petitioner then lodged a complaint before the concerned police for necessary action against the society chairman and secretary.
When there was no action on the complaint lodged by him and failure to register any crime by the police the present writ petition is filed contending that the police are duty bound to register a crime when once the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence.
Hari Singh vs State of UP
On the other hand, the government counsel for home, appearing for the police, contended that the writ petition is not maintainable since the petitioner has got a remedy under Section 190 and 200 CrPC against the alleged inaction on the part of police in registering a crime.
After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, Justice P Keshava Rao found that the concerned police officer has failed to register any crime though commission of prima facie case is made out, according to the petitioner.
When information is brought before the police about commission of any alleged offence, which is cognizable, then the concerned police officer is duty bound to register the crime.
When the police officer fails to register a crime, the aggrieved party can resort to the provisions of Chapter XV of the Code and lodge a complaint before the concerned magistrate, the judge observed.
Relying on judgments of the Apex Court in cases of Hari Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Divine Retreat Centre vs State of Kerala, Justice Keshava Rao held that wherever there is inaction on the part of police to act on the complaint and follow the procedure under Chapter XII of the Code, it is for the aggrieved party to file a complaint under Sections 190 and 200 CrPC before the magistrate concerned.
The judge while dismissing the petition as not maintainable, said that the petitioner has got every right to invoke the powers under Sections 190 and 200 CrPC and file a complaint before the magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the magistrate is required to look into the complaint in compliance with the procedure contemplated in Chapter XV of the code.