Holding

A police officer may refuse to register an FIR if a preliminary enquiry shows the allegations to be false, and a co‑sharer's civil right to joint family property must be enforced through civil, not criminal, remedies.

Summary

The appellant, a co‑sharer of a joint family property, alleged that his brother (respondent No.4) unlawfully restrained him from occupying the first floor of the house and complained to the police, but no FIR was registered. He filed an application under Section 482 of the CrPC before the High Court seeking a direction to register the FIR; the High Court dismissed the application. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that while a police officer is statutorily required to register an FIR under Section 154, he may first conduct a preliminary enquiry to determine whether the allegations have substance, and if they are found false, he is not bound to register the FIR. The Court further held that the right of a co‑sharer to enjoy joint family property is a civil right that must be enforced through civil remedies, not criminal proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The extent of a police officer's duty under Section 154 CrPC to register an FIR when the complaint is found false after a preliminary enquiry.
Whether a civil right to enjoy joint family property can be enforced through criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the Supreme Court can direct the police to register an FIR in such circumstances.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 154, s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 339

Subjects

FIR registrationSection 154 CrPCSection 482 CrPCjoint family propertycivil rightcriminal proceedingspreliminary enquirypolice duty

Judgment

A RAJINDER SINGH KATOCH
v.
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION & ORS.

OCTOBER 12, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s.154-FIR-Registration
of-When-Held: Though competent officer is legally bound to register ~
C FIR, but after premliminary enquily the authoritiesfind the allegations
not to be correct, they are not bound to register such FIR.
Remedy-Civil remedy-Criminal proceedings-Recourse to-
For enforcement ofright ofco-sharer to enjoy joint family property-
D Held: Such right being civil in nature, has to be enforced by taking
recourse to remedies under Civil law and not by taking recourse to
criminal proceedings.
Appellant was denied access to joint family property by the co-
sharer (respondent No. 4). His FIR was not registered. He filed an . .( '
E application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeking direction to the authorities to
register the case against respondent No. 4 and the same was
dismissed. Hence the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
F HELD : 1. Although the officer in charge of a police station is
legally bound to register a First Information Report in terms of
Section 154 Cr. P.C., ifthe allegations made by them give rise to an
offence which can be investigated without obtaining any permission . -~

from the Magistrate concerned, the same by itself, however, does
G not take away the right of the competent officer to make a perliminary
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
~ase, the authorities has made investigations into the matter. In fact,
the Superintendent of police himself has, pursuant to the directions
H 246
--i
RAJINDER SINGH KA TOCH v. CHANDIGARH 247
ADMINISTRATION [SINHA,J.]
-I
issued by the High Court, investigated into the matter and visited A
the spot in order to find out the truth in the complaint ofthe 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. In a
case of this nature where the authorities bound by law have already B
in investigated into the matter and found that the allegations made
1 by the appeilant against respondent No. 4 were not correct, it would
not be proper for this Court to issue any direction to lodge a First
..... Information Report. [Paras 8 and 10] [249-A, B, C, E]

2. Right of a co-sharer to enjoy the joint family property is a c
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, cannot'
be taken recourse to for enforcing such a civil right.
[Paras 9 and 10] [249-D, E] D

~ Shashikant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., (2006)
11 SCALE 272, relied on.
't
Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT ofDelhi) and Ors., [2006] 2 SCC .
677, referred to. E

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. ,
1432of2007.
From the Judgment and final order dated 12.12.2005 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Misc. No. 2206-M F
-4. of2005.
• •
Asha Jain Madan, Mukesh Jain and Dushyant Parashar for the
Appellant.
Romesh Gautam, Geetanjali Shanker, Dr. Kailash Chand and Kamini G
Jaiswal for the Respondents.
~ The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
H
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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 .•..
c Procedure before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The said
application was dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment, stating:
"The 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.
D
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
E was not residing in the aforesaid house and the allegations leveled
by him found to be false being family dispute."
5. Appellant, is, thus, before us.
6. Ms. Asha Jain Madan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
F 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
G 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
H of respondent No.4, however, supported the judgment.
)

I
RAJINDER SINGH KA TOCH v. CHANDIGARH 249
ADMINISTRATION [SINHA, J.]
8. Although the officer in charge of a police station is legally bound A
to register a first infmmation report in tenns of Section 154 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, if the allegations made by them gives rise to an
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 B
case, in order to find out as to whether the first infonnation sought to be
1 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 c
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.
9. 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 · D
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.
' I 0. Criminal proceedings, in our opinion, cannot be taken recourse E
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. I to 3 to lodge a first infonnation
F
report.
-I

~
11. 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 G
to make a preliminaiy enquiry so as to find out as to whether allegations
made had any substance or not.
--,i.
)

In Shashikant v. Central Bureau ofInvestigation & Ors., (2006)
11. SCALff272,.this Court stated :
H
\

250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A "Only 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
B 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
c 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."
There is no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed accordingly.
D K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.

(

. "