RAMESH KUMARI Vs. STATE N C T OF DELHI
LAWS(SC)-2006-2-33
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
February 21,2006
RAMESH KUMARI
Appellant
VERSUS
State (N.T.C. Of Delhi) And Ors
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
SUSADIMA AMAROLPAM VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2006-11-304] [REFERRED TO]FARID KHAN VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2019-4-158] [REFERRED TO]
MUKTY TIRKEY VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2006-12-39] [REFERRED TO]
K.RAGHUPATHY VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, GREATER CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2017-7-29] [REFERRED TO]
N GANAPATHY VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2008-8-98] [REFERRED TO]
LALITA KUMARI VS. GOVT. OF U.P. [LAWS(SC)-2013-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
T C THANGARAJ VS. V ENGAMMAL [LAWS(SC)-2011-7-131] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV INDER SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-340] [REFERRED TO]
MANGALA MISHRA VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2018-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
SOMASHEKHRAPPA S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA VS. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA [LAWS(KAR)-2013-3-298] [REFERRED]
VIJAY AGGARWAL VS. STATE NCT OF DELH [LAWS(DLH)-2006-6-55] [REFERRED TO]
KALPANA KUTTY VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
BABITA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2018-1-33] [REFERRED TO]
FAROOK MOHAMMED VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(BOM)-2008-12-69] [REFERRED TO]
RIMA GULSHAN VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
KOGANTI LAKSHMI VS. STATE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2010-3-38] [REFERRED TO]
K R RAVI RATHINAM VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KAMARAJAR SALAI; INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE; COMMISSIONER OF POLICE; SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING; SECRETARY, INFORMATION AND CINEMA; CHIEF PRODUCER, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA FILMS DIVISION; ROCKLINE; B PONKU [LAWS(MAD)-2014-12-403] [REFERRED]
DR. Y.MANJUNATH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2016-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
BARE LAL VS. DEEPA [LAWS(MPH)-2016-12-118] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SUBHAG SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2009-8-152] [REFERRED TO]
KHURSHEED AHMAD CHOHAN VS. UT OF JK [LAWS(J&K)-2023-9-36] [REFERRED TO]
RAMALINGAM VS. S.SUBRAMANIAN [LAWS(MAD)-2017-9-74] [REFERRED TO]
ALEQUE PADAMSEE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2007-7-67] [REFERRED TO]
LALLAN CHAUDHARY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-2006-10-25] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE SHREE RAM JANKI JI ASTHAN TAPOVAN MANDIR VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(SC)-2019-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR GAUTAM VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-3-131] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY PANDIT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-1-190] [REFERRED TO]
DEVIDAS WAMAN SHINKAR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-9-347] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHAN GOPAL S/O SHRI NARAYAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-10-128] [REFERRED TO]
SHWETA BHADAURIA VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2016-12-112] [REFERRED TO]
SRI BASAVARAJ SHIVAPPA MUTTAGI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
SAROJ YADAV VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2019-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
A. PERUMAL VS. STATE AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-2-332] [REFERRED TO]
RUBABBUDDIN SHEIKH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2010-1-18] [REFERRED TO]
KANTIBHAI BHIKHABHAI CHAVDA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-4-249] [REFERRED TO]
YOGASH GUPTA VS. SECRETARY NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2009-2-76] [REFERRED TO]
SEEMA DEVI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-9-248] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIK ABDULLA SHAREEF VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2010-7-94] [REFERRED TO]
NATHOO LAL GANGWAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-11-113] [REFERRED TO]
JINDER ALI SK. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR [LAWS(CAL)-2007-4-81] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN SAXENA & ANR VS. TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-8-359] [REFERRED TO]
J PRABHATHIAMMA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2007-9-43] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHAVATHIAMMA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2007-9-56] [REFERRED TO]
MUSTHAFA HAJI M K VS. DIRECTOR CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(KER)-2010-9-59] [REFERRED TO]
P. AYYAPPAN VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2015-10-110] [REFERRED TO]
D PRASANNA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2006-4-42] [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2006-10-485] [REFERRED TO]
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(P&H)-2006-11-82] [REFERRED TO]
SHESHA SINGH VS. B.C. GUPTA [LAWS(P&H)-2007-5-83] [REFERRED TO]
JASWINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2007-10-27] [REFERRED TO]
WALI AHMED VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2012-6-43] [REFERRED TO]
SASI THOMAS VS. STATE TAMIL NADU [LAWS(SC)-2006-11-135] [REFERRED TO]
PARADISE CREDIT P. LTD VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-12-213] [REFERRED TO]
HARI PRAKASH RAWAT VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-11-75] [REFERRED TO]
K N SHARMA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2010-8-363] [REFERRED TO]
XXX VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2023-12-23] [REFERRED TO]
ASHRU AND ORS. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2015-7-323] [REFERRED TO]
L. SHANKARAMURTHY VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2012-9-150] [REFERRED TO]
SAVITRI DWIVEDI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-9-52] [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2011-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
PRASHANT MANCHANDA VS. GOVERNOR OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2007-3-162] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL GAFOOR MUSA ALI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-7-77] [REFERRED TO]
VANSHU VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-5-276] [REFERRED TO]
VEEDHI NOOKARATNAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2023-1-66] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN DAS VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2011-1-57] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYA GUPTA VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2007-4-67] [REFERRED TO]
EX CONSTABLE RAM KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2010-9-157] [REFERRED TO]
BHASKARAN VS. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(KER)-2013-4-132] [REFERRED TO]
LALLAN CHAUDHARY AND ORS. VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. [LAWS(SC)-2006-1-95] [REFERRED TO]
G KUTTY ALIAS RAMESH VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT [LAWS(MAD)-2010-9-19] [REFERRED TO]
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2010-4-143] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. HARPREET SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2020-1-279] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SUBHAG SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2009-8-41] [REFERRED TO]
G PRABAKARAN VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2018-9-493] [REFERRED TO]
MURUKESHAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2010-5-33] [REFERRED TO]
MOOSAKOYA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2007-12-27] [REFERRED TO]
V ENGAMMAL VS. P SUGANTHI [LAWS(SC)-2011-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
LALITA KUMARI VS. GOVERNMENT OF U P [LAWS(SC)-2012-2-42] [REFERRED TO]
VINAY TAMBI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-1-191] [REFERRED TO]
VINAY TAMBI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-1-191] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHWASI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2007-9-175] [REFERRED TO]
MALKHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-10-178] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP RAMMILAN SHUKLA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-10-34] [REFERRED TO]
KOMAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KHELAWAN VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-1-189] [REFERRED TO]
DOLIBEN KANTILAL PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2012-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
A P CIVIL LIBERTIES COMMITTEE VS. GOVERNMENT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2009-2-90] [REFERRED TO]
CHARU KISHOR MEHTA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-11-31] [REFERRED TO]
JERUSALEM MATHAI, HYDERABAD VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2016-6-94] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMA RAJAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2014-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
KEDARNATH SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2007-8-30] [REFERRED TO]
GEORGE MUTHOOT VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2010-1-22] [REFERRED TO]
MAREPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2017-6-66] [REFERRED TO]
JOHN C V ALIAS JOHN PERUVANTHANAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2008-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
NARMADA BAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2011-4-42] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR NATH PODDAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2021-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
K NEELAMEGAM VS. STATE REP. BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2011-11-116] [REFERRED TO]
V SUBRAMANIAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2011-11-467] [REFERRED]
WASEEM HAIDER VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-12-70] [REFERRED TO]
CHARU KISHOR MEHTA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-10-149] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH R GOKAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-12-103] [REFERRED TO]
FARSUBHAI MULJIBHAI GOKLANI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-2-235] [REFERRED TO]
CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE CO. LTD. VS. THE STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2014-9-82] [REFERRED TO]
KAJA RAMA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2023-11-56] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKUNTALADEVI GIRJA RAVAT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2012-1-137] [REFERRED TO]
SURYA PRAKASAM VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-1-216] [REFERRED TO]
SABBIR JAMALBHAI MEHTAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2011-6-19] [REFERRED TO]
NAGARBHAI GOVINDBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-3-585] [REFERRED TO]
K. LALL VS. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-9-367] [REFERRED TO]
BABUL SARKAR VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2006-9-43] [REFERRED TO]
TAME NGUBA VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2012-8-176] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA PRATAP NAYYAR VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2010-7-20] [REFRRED TO]
A RAJAMMAL VS. SUPERITENDENT OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2009-2-216] [REFERRED TO]
M CHANDRAN VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2010-4-175] [REFERRED TO]
LT. COLONEL DHARAMVIR SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2019-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
UMESH KUMAR BOHARE VS. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2020-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2008-8-16] [REFERRED TO]
SIGMA INTERACTIVE INDIA PVT. LTD VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2006-3-561] [REFERRED TO]
LALAN CHAUDHARY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-2005-10-148] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER SINGH KATOCH VS. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION [LAWS(SC)-2007-10-63] [REFERRED TO]
SUGESAN TRANSPORT PVT LTD VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2016-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
SIVAKAMA SUNDARI RAVI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-2-254] [REFERRED TO]
T KRISHNAMACHARI VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE EGMORE CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2007-6-398] [REFERRED TO]
A. SELVAM VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2017-9-36] [REFERRED TO]
N RAGHUMURTHY S/O T NINGAPPA VS. STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE [LAWS(KAR)-2018-2-255] [REFERRED TO]
SOMASHEKHRAPPA VS. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA [LAWS(KAR)-2013-3-246] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Sema, J. -
(1.)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 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 various articles on 9-9-1997 and 10-9-1997. We make it clear that we are not entering into the merits of the case.
(2.)The grievance of the appellant is that an information of a cognizable 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 Writ Petition No. 108 of 1998. By the impugned order the High Court was of the view that the appellant has 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 of the information filed by the appellant. The High Court was also of the view that the appellant has alternative remedy available to her, albeit, without indicating what is the alternative remedy available to the appellant. The High Court ultimately also observed that should respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be seized of petitioners complaint or representation, they shall also examine and pass appropriate orders within three months.
(3.)Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, at the outset, invites our attention to the counter- affidavit filed by the respondent and submits that pursuant to the aforesaid observation of the High Court the complaint/representation has been subsequently examined by the respondent and found no genuine case was established. We are not convinced by this submission because the sole grievance of the appellant is that no case has been registered in terms of the mandatory provisions of Section 154 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Genuineness or otherwise of the information can only be considered after registration of the case. Genuineness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. We are also clearly of the view that 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. The ground of alternative remedy nor pending of the contempt petition would be no substitute in law not to register a case when a citizen makes a complaint of a cognizable offence against the Police Officer.
(2.)The grievance of the appellant is that an information of a cognizable 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 Writ Petition No. 108 of 1998. By the impugned order the High Court was of the view that the appellant has 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 of the information filed by the appellant. The High Court was also of the view that the appellant has alternative remedy available to her, albeit, without indicating what is the alternative remedy available to the appellant. The High Court ultimately also observed that should respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be seized of petitioners complaint or representation, they shall also examine and pass appropriate orders within three months.
(3.)Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, at the outset, invites our attention to the counter- affidavit filed by the respondent and submits that pursuant to the aforesaid observation of the High Court the complaint/representation has been subsequently examined by the respondent and found no genuine case was established. We are not convinced by this submission because the sole grievance of the appellant is that no case has been registered in terms of the mandatory provisions of Section 154 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Genuineness or otherwise of the information can only be considered after registration of the case. Genuineness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. We are also clearly of the view that 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. The ground of alternative remedy nor pending of the contempt petition would be no substitute in law not to register a case when a citizen makes a complaint of a cognizable offence against the Police Officer.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.