RAMESH KUMARI versus STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 403 · Decided: 21-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

RAMESH KUMAR! 
A 
v. 
STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 
[H.K. SEMA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
S.154-Refusal by police to register complaint-Pending a civil litigation 
one side breaking open lock and removing articles from suit premises- C 
Complaint by other side-Not registered-Writ Petition-High Court holding 
that since contempt petition was pending and alternative remedy was available, 
it could not direct registration of complaint-Held, pendency of contempt 
. petition or alternative remedy no ground not to register the complaint-Since 
complaint filed against a police officer, CBI would register the complaint and D 
investigate the maller. 
In a property dispute the High Court granted stay order protecting 
possession of the appellant. However, respondents No. 2 and 3 were said , 
to have broken open the lock and removed various articles from the suit 
premises. The appellant filed a complaint in the Police Station concerned, E 
but no case was registered. The appellant filed a writ petition before the 
High Court, which held that as the petitioner had filed a contempt petition 
and there was an alternative remedy available, it could not direct to 
register a case. Aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The High Court erred in law in dismissing the petition 
solely on the ground that the contempt petition was pending and the 
appellant had an alternative remedy. Alternative remedy or pendency of 
contempt petition would be no ground in law not to register a case when 
F 
a citizen makes a complaint of a cogmzable offence against a Police Officer. G 
The provision of s.154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is 
mandatory and the police officer concerned is duty bound to register the 
,, 
case on the basis of an information disclosing cognizable offence. 
[405-D-E; 407-EJ 
1.2. In the instant case, the complaint was filed against the Police H 
404 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
!2006] 2 S.C.R. 
A Officer. Counsel for the parties are not at variance that in such a situation 
the interest of justice would be better served if this Court directs the CBI 
to register the case and investigate the matter. Ordered accordingly. 
(407-G-Hl 
2. It is also not disputed that the contempt petition filed by the 
B appellant is also pending disposal before the High Court since 1997. The 
petition should be dispos,ed of with a sense of urgency otherwise the 
petition itself will loose all i1:s force and the purpose for which the contempt 
1 
is initiated would be defeated. (407-F-Gl 
~ 
C 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1229 
of 2002. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.12.2002 of the Delhi High 
Court in Criminal Writ Petii:ion No. 108/1998 
Ms. lndu Malhotra for the Appellant. 
Vikas Singh, ASG, S. Wasim A. Qadri Mrs. Anil Katiyar and D.S. 
Mahra for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivere~ by 
E 
SEMA, J. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 24.1.2002 
passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The controversy in 
this appeal is confined to the non-registration of the case by the police pursuant 
to a complaint dated 9.9.1997 and 13.9.1997 filed by the appellant. It is 
stated that the appellant was in possession of the land. The stay order was 
F granted by the High Court protecting the possession of the appellant on 
14.8.1997 and it was extended by another order dated 10.9.1997, in the 
presence of the other side. However, the respondent Nos. 4 to 9 broke open 
the lock and removed variom: articles on 9.9.1997 and 10.9.1997. We make 
it clear that we are not enter.ng into the merits of the case. 
G 
The grievance of the appellant is that an information of a cognizable 
H 
offence has been filed by the appellant before the Station House Officer 
(SHO), Kapashera on 9.9.1997 and 13.9.1997. However, no case was registered 
by the concerned SHO. Thereafter, the matter was brought to the notice of 
the Police Commissioner, without any result. This has led the appellant to 
approach the High Court by filing Criminal Wnt Petition No. I 08 of 1998. 
' ' 
RAMESH KUMAR! v. STATE(N.C.T. OF DELHI) AND ORS. 
405 
By the impugned order the High Court was of the view that the appellant has A 
filed a Contempt Petition CCP No. 307/1997 and that is pending before the 
High Court. The High Court found it difficult to direct to register a case on 
the basis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.