CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents to register First Information Report and investigate the case pertaining to the death of Brij Raj Singh.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that on 23. 8. 2000, at 3:15 a. m. , one Ashok Singh, Incharge of Balsamand Hotel, Jodhpur, reported the matter to the Police Station, Mandore (Jodhpur) that Brij Raj Singh had drown in the lake. THE police reached the spot, recovered the dead body of Brij Raj Singh and sent it for autopsy which was conducted on the same day by the Medical Jurist, M. G. Hospital, Jodhpur. The police started proceedings under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") and the same have not yet been concluded. The petitioner-mother of deceased Brij Raj Singh has alleged in this petition that she had approached various times to the police authorities to lodge an F. I. R. but the same has not been registered and even her statement was not recorded. Hence this petition. The object of lodging the F. I. R. is to put the police in motion in order to investigate the alleged crime. Its evidentiary value is not very much as it is not a substantive piece of evidence but its value depends on the circumstances of each case including the nature of the crime and the position of the informant etc. The receipt and recording of the information by the police, though may not be a condition precedent for setting in motion of a criminal proceeding but it is a statutory right of the complainant to lodge a report for the reason that an informant has a right to set the criminal law in motion and also from the point of view of the investigating authorities it is important for obtaining information about the alleged criminal activity so as to take appropriate and suitable steps for tracing and bringing at the book the guilty party. Section 154 of the Code has three-fold objects, i. e. (i) it keeps the police and the District Magistrate informed; (ii) it makes available to the Judicial Officer the material, on which the investigation commences; and (iii) it is a safe-guard against embellisment or forgetfulness. Moreso, it is not necessary that there must be a complete or satisfactory proof of the offence at the time as the information may merely indicate that the offence has been committed. The F. I. R. must be recorded without wait until it is certain that the offence has really been committed. The information can be lodged by any person and it is not necessary that the offender or the witnesses should be named therein. The issue : whether FIR, when asked, must be lodged or not, has been consid- ered from time to time by the courts. In A. R. Antuley vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak (1), the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "any one can set or put the criminal law in motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offe- nce indicates to the contrary. The scheme of the Cr. P. C. envisages two parallel and independent agencies for taking criminal offences to Court. Even for most serious offence of murder, it was not disputed that a private complaint cannot only be filed but can be entertained and proceeded with in accordance with law. Locus standi of the complainant is a concept foreign to the criminal jurisprudence. "
(3.) IN State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (2), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- "at the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence in compliance with the mandate of Section 154 (1) of the Code, the concerned police officer cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information lodged by the informant is reliable or genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. On the other hand, the Officer INcharge of a Police Station is statutorily obliged to register a case and then to proceed with the investigation if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate, subject to the proviso to Section 157. . . . . Be it noted that Section 154 (1) of the Code, the Legislature in its wisdom has carefully and consciously used the expression `information' without qualifying the same as in Section 41 (1) (a) or (g) of the Code wherein the expressions `reasonable complaint' and `credible information' are used. Evidently, the non- qualification of the word `information' in Section 154 (1) unlike in Section 41 (1) (a) and (g) of the Code may be for the reason that the Police Officer should not refuse to record an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence and to register a case thereon on the ground that he is not satisfied with the reasonableness or credibility of the information. IN other words. `reasonableness' or `credibility' of the said information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. " From the above, it becomes apparent that the only condition precedent for recording the F. I. R. , is that there must be an information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence and once such an information is furnished, it becomes sine-qua-non for lodging the report and in such a situation when information disclosing commis- sion of a cognizable offence is conveyed to the Officer Incharge of a Police Station, he cannot refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible, rather he is under legal obligation to register a case on the said information. Needless to say that he has an option u/sec. 157 of the Code subsequent thereto to make up his mind as to whether he would or would not enter on an investigation. The submission made by Mr. Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General that F. I. R. cannot be lodged by the petitioner in view of pendency of the proceedings under Section 174 of the Code is preposterous for the reason that the object of the proceedings under Section 174 is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death or if so, what is the apparent cause of the death. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted, is foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under Section 174 of the Code. ;