LexRAJINDER SINGH KATOCH versus CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A RAJINDER SINGH KA TOCH v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION & ORS. OCTOBER 12, 2007 B [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3-s.154-FIR-Registration of-When-Held: Though competent officer is legally bound to register ~ C FIR, but after premliminary enquily the authorities find the allegations not to be correct, they are not bound to register such FIR. Remedy-Civil remedy-Criminal proceedings-Recourse to- For enforcement of right of co-sharer to enjoy joint family property- D Held: Such right being civil in nature, has to be enforced by taking recourse to remedies under Civil law and not by taking recourse to criminal proceedings. Appellant was denied access to joint family property by the co- sharer (respondent No. 4). His FIR was not registered. He filed an E application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeking direction to the authorities to register the case against respondent No. 4 and the same was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court F HELD : 1. Although the officer in charge of a police station is legally bound to register a First Information Report in terms of Section 154 Cr. P.C., ifthe allegations made by them give rise to an offence which can be investigated without obtaining any permission from the Magistrate concerned, the same by itself, however, does G not take away the right of the competent officer to make a perliminary enquiry, in a given case, in order to find out as to whether the first information sought to be lodged had any substance or not. In this ~ase, the authorities has made investigations into the matter. In fact, the Superintendent of police himself has, pursuant to the directions H 246 . .( ' . -~ --i RAJINDER SINGH KA TOCH v. CHANDIGARH 247 ADMINISTRATION [SINHA,J.] -I issued by the High Court, investigated into the matter and visited A the spot in order to find out the truth in the complaint of the petitioner from the neighbours. It was found that the complaint made by the appellant was false and the same had been filed with an ulterior motive to take illegal possession of the first floor of the house. In a case of this nature where the authorities bound by law have already B in investigated into the matter and found that the allegations made 1 by the appeilant against respondent No. 4 were not correct, it would not be proper for this Court to issue any direction to lodge a First ..... Information Report. [Paras 8 and 10] [249-A, B, C, E] 2. Right of a co-sharer to enjoy the joint family property is a c civil right. Such a right, if denied by the other co-sharers for one reason or the other, must be enforced by taking recourse to the remedies available under the civil laws. Criminal proceedings, cannot' be taken recourse to for enforcing such a civil right. D [Paras 9 and 10] [249-D, E] ~ Shashikant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., (2006) 11 SCALE 272, relied on. 't Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors., [2006] 2 SCC . 677, referred to. E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. , 1432of2007. From the Judgment and final order dated 12.12.2005 of the High F Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Misc. No. 2206-M -4. of2005. • • Asha Jain Madan, Mukesh Jain and Dushyant Parashar for the Appellant. Romesh Gautam, Geetanjali Shanker, Dr. Kailash Chand and Kamini G Jaiswal for the Respondents. ~ The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. H 248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R. A 2. Appellant and respondent No.4 herein are brothers and co- sharers. They jointly possess some properties. Appellant herein allegedly came to Chandigarh to reside in the family house sometimes in 2001. He allegedly kept his belongings there and came back to Delhi. 3. In 2002, he, when came to Chandigarh, was allegedly restrained B by his brother from entering into the house. His complaint to the Police Station went unheeded. First Information Report, according to him, was not registered despite the fact that it disclosed a cognizable offence. +- 4. He filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal .•.. c Procedure before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The said D E application was dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment, stating: "The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for issuing directions to respondents No.2 and 3 to register a case
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.