http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1432 of 2007

PETITIONER: Rajinder Singh Katoch

RESPONDENT: Chandigarh Administration & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/10/2007

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) NO.3360 of 2006)

S.B. Sinha, J.

1.      Leave granted. 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 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  Procedure before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.  The said application  was dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment, stating : \023The 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 against  respondent No.4 for house trespass and theft. Respondent No.4 is the real brother of the  petitioner.  The said house in question is a joint  property of seven legal heirs.  After the death of  father of the petitioner, the same has been inherited  by seven persons.  In the reply, it has been stated  that the petitioner was not residing in the aforesaid  house and the allegations leveled by him found to  be false being family dispute.\024

5.      Appellant, is, thus, before us. 6.      Ms. Asha Jain Madan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  appellant, in support of this appeal, would submit that despite the fact  that the property was a joint property, having regard to the provisions  contained in Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, the respondent  could not have wrongfully restrained the appellant from occupying the  first floor of the property and have access to his belongings.  It was  urged that in terms of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,  the Police Officers had a duty to register the first information report  once the allegations disclosed commission of a cognizable offence.  7.      Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  respondent and Mr. Ramesh Gautam, learned counsel appearing on  behalf of respondent No.4, however, supported the judgment.   8.      Although the officer in charge of a police station is legally bound  to register a first information report in terms of Section 154 of the Code  of Criminal Procedure, if the allegations made by them gives rise to an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

offence which can be investigated without obtaining any permission  from the Magistrate concerned; the same by itself, however, does not  take away the right of the competent officer to make a preliminary  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 case,  the authorities had made investigations into the matter.  In fact, the  Superintendent of Police himself has, pursuant to the directions issued  by the High Court, investigated into the matter and visited 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.           Ms. Madan contended that the right of the appellant to live in the  joint family cannot be taken away.  Right of a co-sharer to enjoy the  joint family property is a 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, in our opinion, cannot be taken recourse to  for enforcing such a civil right.  In any event, in a case of this nature  where the authorities bound by law have already investigated into the  matter and found that the allegations made by the appellant against  respondent No.4 were not correct, it would not be proper for us to issue  any direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to lodge a first information  report.        We are not oblivious to the decision of this Court in Ramesh  Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. [(2006) 2 SCC 677] wherein  such a statutory duty has been found in the Police Officer.  But, as  indicated hereinbefore, in an appropriate case, the Police Officers also  have a duty to make a preliminary enquiry so as to find out as to  whether allegations made had any substance or not.        In Shashikant v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. [2006  (11) SCALE 272], this Court stated : \023Only an anonymous complaint was made in June  2004.  Evidently it was within the province of the  first respondent to commence a preliminary  inquiry.  The procedure laid down in the CBI  Manual and in particular when it was required to  inquire into the allegation of the corruption on the  part of some public servants, recourse to the  provisions of the Manual cannot be said to be  unfair.  It did not find any reason to convert the  preliminary inquiry into a regular case.  Pursuant  to or in furtherance of the recommendations made  by the first respondent, which had received the  imprimatur by the Central Vigilance Commission,  departmental proceedings were initiated.  The  Central vigilance Commission advised the Railway  Board to initiate minor penalty proceedings against  the delinquent officers by a letter dated  04.08.2005.\024

       There is no merit in the appeal.  It is dismissed accordingly.