Final Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: C. C. No. 8 SW 2023 Mrs M Vs State and anr.
CNR No.MHMM18-000313-2023
ORDER BELOW EXH.1
Summary of the contents of the application
1. By way of the present application, applicant Mrs. M, claimed that
this is application under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure.
She contended that she is 44 years old and approached Respondent No.1,
Police Station, hereinafter referred as Bandra P.S., but it malafidely and
intentionally failed to perform its duty by registering offences punishable
under Sections 376, etc. of Indian Penal Code, despite disclosure of
cognizable offence committed by the Respondent No.2, hereinafter
referred as respondent Mr. R.
2. On 14.11.2022, the applicant visited Bandra P.S. and submitted a
detailed written complaint, annexed with the present application, as an
Exh.A, alleging commission of grave sexual offences, as per Section
154(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. She also sent said copy to
Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. But no action taken.
3. Therefore, on 16.11.2022, the applicant, through her advocate
attempted to obtain the information about the action taken by Bandra P.S.,
in respect of complaint lodged by her. On 21.11.2022, her statement was
recorded in Marathi, which she can not read and understand. But First
Information Report was not registered. Then on 09.12.2022, she sent
show cause notice through her advocate to Bandra P.S., calling upon it to
show cause why it neglected its duty.
4. The Bandra P.S., have no right or liberty to give any opinion or
reject an application made under Section 154(1) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, in cognizable offence of sexual nature. They can file only
summary report, if no offence transpired. But by letter dated 22.12.2022,
which is annexed as, Exh.D, with the present application, Bandra P.S.,
informed that no offence was transpired. Such action is illegal.
1 of 15
-- 1 of 15 --
C. C. No. 8 SW 2023 Mrs M Vs State and anr.
CNR No.MHMM18-000313-2023
5. Applicant then narrated various legal provisions and observations
of Supreme Court, in various cases, about the position of law, in respect
of matters covered by Section 154 and Section 156(3) of Code of
Criminal Procedure. Those being legal aspects, can not be reproduced.
The applicant lastly prayed that direction be issued to Bandra P.S., to
register the offence against respondent Mr. R, for offences mentioned in
the present application.
6. Thus, the summary of the present application, Exh.1, is that there
mentioned nothing about the allegations constituting offence. It states that
it is an application under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure
about the allegations narrated in an Exh.A, annexed with it.
Contents of the affidavit filed with main application, Exh.1.
7. The application is supported by affidavit. It is very short. It is
mentioned in it that the main application is filed under Section 156(3) of
Code of Criminal Procedure. Applicant is well versed with the facts and
circumstances of the case. Therefore, she is competent to swear. The
details provided in the present complaint have been entered as per her
instructions. She has not filed any other case in any other court in respect
of present complaint. The contents of the complaint and affidavit, are both
read and explained to her. The complaint may be read as part of this
affidavit. The facts are true and correct to the best of her knowledge and
belief.
8. The affidavit is in support of the main application, Exh.1, in which
nothing mentioned about the actual allegations constituting an offence of
cognizable nature. It is just a sworn statement. It lacks connection with
basic allegations, as required by law.
9. Thus, the main application and affidavit in support of it lacks basic
pleadings constituting cognizable offence.
2 of 15
-- 2 of 15 --
C. C. No. 8 SW 2023 Mrs M Vs State and anr.
CNR No.MHMM18-000313-2023
Contents of the annexture, Exh.-A
10. The summary of the allegations is that applicant came in contact
with respondent, Mr. R, in the year 2000, who is 28 years older than the
applicant. He got friendly and shared his business work with her across
India, Hongkong, Thailand, etc. Subsequently, he requested applicant to
marry with him. On 01.09.2002, they entered into marital tie, at Mumbai.
There occurred physical relations amongst them on various occasions
repeatedly. A daughter, who is now of 22 years of age, also born out of
said wedlock. She was under belief that she is legally wedded wife of the
respondent and had no idea that the respondent Mr. R, is already married
and also having children from his previous marriage. On 22.09.2021, he
suddenly left India for Dubai and not returned. He also refused to send
financial aid to applicant and her daughter. Then she came to know about
previous marriage of the respondent Mr. R, after making some inquiry.
The act of the respondent Mr. R, amounts to deceitful sexual act without
consent of the applicant, constitutes an offence punishable under Sections
376 and 493 of Indian Penal Code, besides other offences for non-
registering of offence despite filing complaint of cognizable offence, etc.
Summary of arguments advanced
11. The Ld. Advocate for the applicant in tune with the main
application and annexture, Exh.A, relying on the material produced
submitted that the applicant was deceived for substantial period and was
sexually abused. Applicant approached Bandra P.S., and its seniors, but no
action taken. Rather, it made inquiry, and came to conclusion that no
offence transpired. The practice followed is totally unknown to law. The
action taken is illegal, besides other aspects of the matter substantiating
his allegations. The Ld. Advocate for the applicant also relied on the
various judgments of Supreme Court, mainly, Lalita Kumari V/s. State of U.P.
((2014)2SCC1), State of Hariyana and Ors. V/s. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. ((1992)
3 of 15
-- 3 of 15 --
C. C. No. 8 SW 2023 Mrs M Vs State and anr.
CNR No.MHMM18-000313-2023
Supp(1)2 SCC335), deal of XYZ V/s. State of M.P. ((2022) SCC OnLine SC 1002),
etc. Those are discussed in following paragraphs, as per their relevance.
The requirements for ordering investigation U/Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C.
12. From the statutory and precendential law, the following principles
are now settled for invocation of jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of
Code of Criminal Procedure.
First, the allegations must constitute offence cognizable in nature.
Second, applicant must initially approach police station and if no action
taken, then to its superior officer as per Section 154(3), of Code of
Criminal Procedure, pleading same allegations contending that no action
taken.
Third, that there must be application filed before court under Section
156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, containing details of allegations
constituting cognizable offence.
Forth, such application must be supported by affidavit containing all these
allegations and affirming on oath that all the allegations are true and
correct.
All these basic requirements must be satisfied before ordering
investigation as prayed for. The present application needs to be
scrutinized in the light of these principles.
Scrutiny of matter
13. If we perused whole record, it reflects that the main application,
Exh.1, does not contain any allegations. It simply mentioned various acts
done by the applicant for getting registered the offence on the basis of
complaint filed by her Bandra P.S. Further, the affidavit containing details
of allegations and affirming their correctness and truthfulness on oath is
also not filed. Thus, some basic requirements mentioned above are not
satisfied. The question arises whether application needs to be rejected.
The following judgments also supports this view. 4 of 15
-- 4 of 15 --
C. C. No. 8 SW 2023 Mrs M Vs State and anr.
CNR No.MHMM18-000313-2023
14. In the case of Priyanka Srivastav V/s. State of U.P. ((2015)6SCC287),
Supreme Court, after discussing all pros and cons of the jurisdiction to be
invoked under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, observed
that,
Para. 29. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the
applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an
appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and
also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more
responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a
routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons.
That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who
are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the
framework of said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be
done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the
scores.
Para. 30. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Section
154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should
be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be
filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an the application under Section 156(3) be
supported by an affidavit so that the person making the application should be conscious
and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is
found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter
him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we
have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned
Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to
say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family
disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases
where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated
in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware
of the delay in lodging of the FIR.
In the case of Sayed Anwar Ahmed and anr. Vs State Of Maha. and anr.
((2017)SCC OnLine Bom 3972), our parent High Court, dealt with same issue
and observed that,
Para.25 To summarise, (a) While dealing with a Complaint seeking an action under Sub-
Section (3) of Section 156 of Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate cannot act mechanically. He
5 of 15
-- 5 of 15 --
C. C. No. 8 SW 2023 Mrs M Vs State and anr.
CNR No.MHMM18-000313-2023
is required to apply his mind to the contents of the Complaint and the documents
produced along with the Complaint ;
(b) An Order passed on the said Complaint must record reasons in brief which should
indicate application of mind by the Magistrate. However, it not necessary to record detailed
reasons;
(c) The power under Sub-Section (3) of Section 156 is discretionary. Only because on
plain reading of the Complaint, a case of commission of cognizable offence is made out,
an Order of investigation should not be mechanically passed. In a given case, the learned
Magistrate can go in to the issue of the veracity of the allegations made in the Complaint.
The learned Magistrate must also consider the other relevant aspects such as the
inordinate delay on the part of the Complainant. The nature of the transaction and
pendency of civil proceedings on the subject are also relevant considerations;
(d) When a Complaint seeking an action under Sub-Section (3) of Section 156 is brought
before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate or the learned Judicial Magistrate, it must be
accompanied by an affidavit in support as contemplated by the decision of the Apex
Court in Priyanka Srivastava. The affidavit must substantially comply with the
requirements set out in Chapter VII of the Criminal Manual and especially paragraphs 5
and 8 which are quoted above; and
(e) Necessary averments recording compliance with Sub- Sections (1) and (3) of Section
154 of the Cr. P. C. should be incorporated with material particulars. Moreover, the
documents in support of the said averments must filed on record.
15. Thus, as the main application lacks basic pleadings constituting
offence of cognizable nature, and as it is also not supported by affidavit as
required by law. In the light of above observations, technically speaking
the application is bound to be rejected.
16. But before passing such order, in the interest of justice certain other
aspects needs consideration. Directly passing order of dismissal of
complaint/application may have an effect of following somewhat hyper
technical approach. For this purpose observations made in recent
judgment of Supreme Court, in the case of XYZ Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
& Ors. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1002, relied by applicant, are also very
important as -
Para.24. Therefore, in such cases, where not only does the Magistrate find the
commission of A cognizable offence alleged on a prima facie reading of the complaint
6 of 15
-- 6 of 15 --
C. C. No. 8 SW 2023 Mrs M Vs State and anr.
CNR No.MHMM18-000313-2023
but also such facts are brought to the Magistrate's notice which clearly indicate the need
for police investigation, the discretion granted in Section 156(3) can only be read as it
been the Magistrate's duty to order the police to investigate. In cases such as the present,
wherein, there is alleged to be documentary or other evidence in the physical possession of
the accused or other individuals which the police would be best place to investigate and
retrieve using the powers under the CrPC, the matter ought to be sent to the police for
investigation.
Para.25. Especially in cases alleging sexual harassment, sexual assault or any similar
criminal allegation wherein the victim has possibly already been traumatized, the Courts
should not further burden a complainant and should press upon police to investigate.
Due regard must be had to the fact that it is not possible for the complainant to retrieve
important evidence regarding her complaint. It may not be possible to arrive at the truth
of the matter in absence of such evidence. The complainant would then be required to
prove her case without being able to bring relevant evidence (which is potentially of great
probative value) on record, which would be unjust.
After Paragraph Nos.26 to 29, it is further observed that,
Para.30. Finally, we wish to once again reiterate the importance of courts dealing with
complainants of sexual harassment and sexual assault in a sensitive manner. It is
important for all courts to remain cognizant of the fact that the legal process tends to be
even more onerous for complainants who are potentially dealing with trauma and
societal shame due to the unwarranted stigma attached to victims of sexual harassment
and assault. At this juncture, especially in cases where the police fails to address the
grievance of such complainants, the Courts have an important responsibility.............
In case of Panchbhai Popatbhai Butani and ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra and
ors. (2009 SCC OnLine Bom. 1983), our parent High Court, dealt with
following two issues, wherein one of the issue is whether application
having proper pleadings is required, without filing a complaint within the
meaning of Section 2(d) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Those points for
reference and observations made while answering them, are as -
Para.16. From the bare reading of the above Order of Reference, it appears to contain two
questions, namely,
(i) whether in absence of a complaint to the police, a complaint can be made directly
before a Magistrate ? and
(ii) whether without filing a complaint within the meaning of Section 2(d) and praying
only for an action under Section 156(3), a complaint before a Magistrate was
maintainable ?
7 of 15
-- 7 of 15 --
C. C. No. 8 SW 2023 Mrs M Vs State and anr.
CNR No.MHMM18-000313-2023
And while answering further observed that
Para.64. In view of our above discussion, we record our answers to the questions of law
posed before us, as follow:-
Answer to Question No. (i) Normally a person should invoke the provisions of Section 154
of the Code before he takes recourse to the power of the Magistrate competent to take
cognizance under Section 190 of the Code, under Section 156(3). Atleast an intimation to
the police of commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154(1) would be a
condition precedent for invocation of powers of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the
Code. We would hasten to add here that this dictum of law is not free from exception.
There can be cases where non-compliance to the provisions of Section 154(3)
would not divest the Magistrate of his jurisdiction in terms of Section 156(3). There could
be cases where the police fail to act instantly and the facts of the case show that there is
possibility of the evidence of commission of the offence being destroyed and/or tampered
with or an applicant could approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code
directly by way of an exception as the Legislature has vested wide discretion in the
Magistrate.
Answer to Question No. (ii) A Petition under Section 156(3) cannot be strictly construed
as a complaint in terms of Section 2(d) of the Code and absence of a specific or improperly
worded prayer or lack of complete and definite details would not prove fatal to a petition
under Section 156(3), in so far as it states facts constituting ingredients of a cognizable
offence. Such petition would be maintainable before the Magistrate.
Para.65. We answer the questions of law accordingly. The matters be listed before a
appropriate bench for disposal in accordance with law.
While coming to these conclusions, while discussing various aspects
about the necessity of application in a particular format for invocation of
jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,
following observations made, restricting the law of pleadings in the
domain of criminal law. Those observations, are as -
Para.55. Non prescription of statutory or judge made law as to the format of a complaint
or a petition clearly indicates that it would hardly be possible for the Courts to reject a
complaint/petition on the ground of its format alone, insofar as it satisfies ingredients of
an offence and avers inaction of the police or makes out a case justifying direct
intervention of the Court. As already noticed, a crime is an act deemed by law to be
harmful to the society in general even though its immediate victim is an individual. (Ref.:
Salmond on Jurisprudence, Twelfth Edition by P.J. Fitzgerald). The distinction between
infringement of civil rights and committing a cognizable offence within the provisions of
Indian Penal Code or any other law is clear and in the later it is beyond the matter of mere
8 of 15
-- 8 of 15 --
C. C. No. 8 SW 2023 Mrs M Vs State and anr.
CNR No.MHMM18-000313-2023
compensation. Even to criminal jurisprudence, the law of pleading is applicable to certain
extent. Thus where a person files a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, he is expected to state the facts giving details and correct versions which would
amount to committing of an offence alleged. It has to satisfy the basic ingredients of such
an offence and it is expected of the complainant to make a proper complaint as
contemplated under Section 2(d) of the Code with appropriate prayers. In contra-
distinction to this, such strict rule of pleadings cannot be made applicable to the
provisions of Section 156(3) of the Code as it is result of a default and even intimation in
appropriate format may suffice the purpose in some cases. That certainly does not mean
that under Section 156(3) properly drafted petition cannot be moved. Rather if a petition
with complete facts, stating detailed and definite events essential to constitute the offence
alleged to have been committed is presented and the prayers have been made, discretion of
the Magistrate would be much wider than merely directing investigation in terms of Section
156(3) and the Court even could take cognizance of the offence if the complaint is filed
under Section 200 of the Code. If a complaint does not disclose a cognizable offence with
proper facts, it may be liable to be dismissed and/or rejected by the Magistrate.
17. From the above observations and directions issued it is clear that
the offences involving sexual assault, etc. against woman must be dealt
with courts by utmost sensitivity. Technical aspects should not hinder the
interest of justice. To meet this end the pleadings should not be strictly
required as required in civil cases.
18. Admittedly, the alleged offence is of grave sexual assault. The
application, Exh.A, annexed with main application narrates the major acts
constituting offence though affirmed by affidavit. There is ample material
produced on record to show that marriage took place and child also born
out of it. If we considered the requirements, as mentioned in preceding
Paragraph No.12, in the light of above observations it can be said that
considering the peculiar and serious nature of allegations, the applicant
can be absolved from certain compliances i.e. want of pleadings in the
main application and affidavit, in support of it. Rejecting present
application, for want of proper compliance, which is otherwise already
done in different way, may have effect of following hyper technical
approach at the cost of justice. Therefore, rather than following such
9 of 15
-- 9 of 15 --
C. C. No. 8 SW 2023 Mrs M Vs State and anr.
CNR No.MHMM18-000313-2023
approach, the Code of Criminal Procedure being the procedural law, the
application needs to be considered in the light of facts came on record
from the other material produced and the observations made in the cases
of XYZ V/s. State of M.P. ((2022) SCC OnLine SC 1002), and Panchbhai
Popatbhai Butani and ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra and ors. (2009 SCC OnLine
Bom. 1983).
19. It is contended by the applicant, though not in main application, but
in annexture, Exh.A, it can be said to be part and parcel of main
application, that respondent Mr. R, suppressed the fact of his first
marriage from the applicant and remarried with her. He established
physical relations taking advantage of this fact. The consent given by
applicant for those relations is obtained by him under fraud. Therefore,
his act constitutes rape within the meaning of Section 375 of Indian Penal
Code. The events followed also constitutes other cognizable offences. The
documents produced showed the applicant solemnized marriage, daughter
born out of it and applicant was in company of respondent Mr. R, for
substantial time. It further reflects that she came to know about the
concealment of fact of first marriage after completing 20 years or more, in
the year 2021.
20. But it is necessary to mention that applicant has not immediately
preferred to take action. She maintained silence for substantial time and
then approached police and then this court as no action was taken by
police after doing inquiry. Thus, there is delay on the part of applicant in
approaching law enforcing agency. The initial contention of want of
knowledge of first marriage, even if presumed to be true the later part of
delay in approaching police and court is not explained by her.
21. In addition to it, the facts and circumstances pleaded seems to be
occurred out of marital discord as respondent Mr. R, severed ties with the
applicant and not paying maintenance to applicant and her daughter.
10 of 15
-- 10 of 15 --
C. C. No. 8 SW 2023 Mrs M Vs State and anr.
CNR No.MHMM18-000313-2023
Further, it is also came on record in the mean time, i.e. in the year 2006,
itself respondent Mr. R, divorced his first wife. It means the illegality or
the alleged offence was continued only upto year 2006. Further, though
the fact of non-filing of proper affidavit can not be considered in the light
of peculiar facts of this matter, however, it can not be totally ignored to
consider the prayer and allow it. The said fact is definitely having some
bearing on the final order.
22. This aspect of delay in approaching police, non-filing of affidavit
and the facts mentioned above about the nature of relationship create a
shadow of doubt on the allegations. However, law is well settled in this
regard also. The truth or falsity of allegations can not be gone into for
issuing directions, under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Such consideration is beyond the purview of jurisdiction conferred by this
provision.
23. Thus, there occurred two contradictory situations before this court,
on one hand the allegations constitute cognizable offence. All the other
requirements, except affidavit in support of allegations, are duly satisfied.
Technicalities needs to be ignored and prayer can be allowed.
24. On the other hand, it can not be ignored that the order sought for is
having serious implications. Allegations are not supported by affidavit.
The allegations are out of marital ties. There is tremendous delay in
approaching police, without any explanations resulted in such delay.
Further, the copy of decree produced on record, shows that the divorce
was already given by respondent Mr. R, to his first wife in the year 2006,
itself. It is further noticed that the Bandra P.S., has not totally ignored the
complaint lodged by applicant rather it carried out some inquiry. In this
initial inquiry it is allegedly transpired that it came to the conclusion that
no offence was made out and no action taken, though those documents
11 of 15
-- 11 of 15 --
C. C. No. 8 SW 2023 Mrs M Vs State and anr.
CNR No.MHMM18-000313-2023
not furnished to applicant, on the basis of which such preliminary inquiry
done and conclusion was drawn.
25. Then question arises what action can be resorted to where interest
of both the parties can be balanced. The applicant, besides other citations,
also relied on judgment of Supreme Court, in the renowned case of Lalita
Kumari V/s. State of U.P. ((2014) 2 SCC 1). In this matter Supreme Court,
collectively considered Sec.154 of Code of Criminal Procedure vis-a-vis
powers of Magistrate under Section 156(3), if First Information Report is
not registered. It also considered the scope of preliminary inquiry in cases
of cognizable nature, and in concluding paragraphs, made observations as
follows -
Para.111. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information
discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in
such a situation.
ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the
necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether
cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be
registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the
entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one
week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is
disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if
information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the
information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable
offence.
vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend
on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary
inquiry may be made are as under:
a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
b) Commercial offences
12 of 15
-- 12 of 15 --
C. C. No. 8 SW 2023 Mrs M Vs State and anr.
CNR No.MHMM18-000313-2023
c) Medical negligence cases
d) Corruption cases
e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for
example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the
reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant
preliminary inquiry.
vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a
preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days.
The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information
received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences,
whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and
meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry
must also be reflected, as mentioned above.
26. The summary of these observations, is that the preliminary inquiry
is not contemplated under Code of Criminal Procedure, in case of
cognizable offences. However, in exceptional cases such as matrimonial
or family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption
cases and cases where there is abnormal delay/laches, etc., covered by
peculiar facts and circumstances, preliminary inquiry can be done or
ordered before registration of First Information Report. However, such
preliminary inquiry should be time bound and should not exceed 15 days
or at the most for adequate reasons, not beyond six weeks. While doing so
the diary must be maintained reflecting the details of inquiry done.
27. Considering the seriousness of allegations pleaded and the peculiar
nature of facts and circumstances occurred, the interest of justice demands
that the grievances of the applicant must be redressed. But at the same
time it should be keep in mind that the respondent Mr. R, the proposed
accused, should not be prejudiced if First Information Report is
registered. For the reasons discussed above, which clearly depicting
peculiar facts and circumstances, born out of marital ties to some extent
13 of 15
-- 13 of 15 --
C. C. No. 8 SW 2023 Mrs M Vs State and anr.
CNR No.MHMM18-000313-2023
and there is unexplained delay in approaching police authorities for
registration of offence, I am of the opinion before directly ordering
registration of First Information Report, preliminary inquiry with some
riders as provided, needs to be ordered, by taking aid of above
observations so that balance of interests of both the parties can be
maintained. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, following order -
ORDER
a. Application is allowed in following terms.
b. The P.S.O., Police Station Bandra, Mumbai, is herewith directed to
make the preliminary inquiry into the allegations made by present
applicant in application filed before the said police station on 14.11.2022,
annexed herewith as an Exh.A, and conclude it within 15 days, from the
receipt of the order of this court.
c. It is further directed that if concerned Investigating Officer, of
Police Station Bandra, Mumbai, comes to conclusion that any offence
transpires from such preliminary inquiry, he is directed to register the
offence immediately on the basis of allegations made and carry out
further investigation as per law.
d. It is further directed that if he comes to some other conclusion and
not registered the offence he shall communicate such conclusion in
written to the applicant and shall also furnish all the papers of preliminary
inquiry, permissible by law, with such communication.
e. It is further directed that while doing so the concerned inquiry
officer must maintain case diary/diary of proceedings, containing the
proper record of the inquiry or investigation done by him.
f. The certified copy of the application Exh.1 along with documents
produced shall be sent to concerned police station.
14 of 15
-- 14 of 15 --
C. C. No. 8 SW 2023 Mrs M Vs State and anr.
CNR No.MHMM18-000313-2023
g. Application is disposed off.
MUMBAI (KOMALSING RAJPUT)
DATE – 04.02.2023 M.M., 12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
15 of 15
-- 15 of 15 --