Page - 1 of 14

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

WP(C) NO.615 OF 2019

Shri Pandit Das,

S/O Late Kartik Das,
C/o. resident of Shib Nagar,
Water Supply Road,
P.S. East Agartala, P.O. Agartala College,
Sub-Division-Agartala,
District-West Tripura, Tripura,
Presently residing at
C/o. Shri Babul Chandra Datta,
Chandrapur, Baldakhal Road,
P.O. Reshambagan, P.S. East Agartala,
Sub-Division-Agartala,
District-West Tripura, Tripura.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary,
Home Department,
Government of Tripura,
New Capital Complex,
P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,
Agartala, District-West Tripura;

2. The Director General of Police, Tripura,

Police Headquarters, A.K. Road,
Fire Brigade Chowmohani,
P.S. West Agartala, P.O. & Sub-Division-Agartala,
District-West Tripura, Pin-799 001;

3. The Superintendent of Police,

West Tripura District,
Police Headquarters, A.K. Road,
Fire Brigade Chowmohani,
P.S. West Agartala, PO & Sub-Division-Agartala,
District-West Tripura, Pin-799 001;

4. The Officer-In-Charge,
East Agartala Police Station,
Motor Stand,
P.S. West Agartala,
PO & Sub-Division-Agartala,
District-West Tripura, Pin-799 001;
------Respondents
 Page - 2 of 14

For petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate

For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, Advocate General

Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
Date of hearing & delivery
of judgment & Order : 20.05.2019

Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH

J U D G M E N T & O R D E R (O R A L)

Heard Mr. Sankar Lodh, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner. Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned Advocate General also

has appeared before this Court along with Sri Ajit Pratap Singh,

Superintendent of Police, West Tripura District and Sri Manik

Debnath, Officer In-charge of East Agartala Police Station.

2. This matter relates to non-registration of the complaint

submitted by the writ petitioner before the Officer In-charge, East

Agartala Police Station on 28.04.2019.

3. After perusal of the subject-matter of the present writ

petition, this Court vide order dated 17.05.2019 passed a direction

upon the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura District and Sri

Manik Debnath, Officer In-charge of East Agartala Police Station to

personally appear before this Court.

4. Today, in terms of the order dated 17.05.2019, Sri Ajit

Pratap Singh, Superintendent of Police, West Tripura District and

Sri Manik Debnath, Officer In-charge of East Agartala Police

Station have appeared personally before this Court.

 Page - 3 of 14

5. Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned Advocate General, Tripura

appearing for the State-respondents, at the very outset, has

placed a communication, dated 19.05.2019 addressed to the

learned Government Advocate, wherein the following facts are

emanated:

“GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
WEST TRIPURA DISTRICT

No.___________/ Dated 19/05/2019

To,
Shri Mangal Debbarma
The Ld. Govt Advocate
Hon’ble High Court of Tripura
Reference: WP(C) 615 of 2019(Pandit Das vs State of
Tripura)

Subject:- Action taken by SP(West)

Sir,

With Due respect, It is to mention that-

1. On 30-04-2019, a complaint was received in the office

of the SP(West) from one Pandit Das, S/O-Lt. Kartik Das
of Shibnagar, PS East Agartala. On receipt of the
complaint, Officer-in-charge East Agartala PS was directed
to take action at the earliest.(Copy enclosed as Annexure-
A). SI Jayanta Haldar of East Agartala PS submitted the
report to the office of Superintendent which was received
on 05-05-2019. On 06-05-2019, again the SP(West)
directed the O/C East Agartala PS—

a. To register FIR since complaint discloses cognizable

offence.(Copy enclosed as Annexure-B and
b. To refer the land matter in the complaint to
concerned SDM
 Page - 4 of 14

After this, on 15/05/2019, O/C East Agartala PS

registered East Agartala PS Case No.2019EAG105, U/S
448/380/468/506/34 IPC against Shambhu Banik(from
whom Pandit Das had purchased the land) and 7/8
unknown others.
2. Since Officer-in-charge of East PS did not register the
FIR in time, penalty as “severe censure” has been
imposed upon OC East PS.
3. Moreover one Enquiry to initiate disciplinary
proceedings has been started on the part of OC East PS
for further stringent action.

This is for favour of your kind information.

Yours sincerely
Superintendent of Police
West Tripura District”

6. Drawing my attention, Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has

stated that, though a clear case has been made under Section 420

of IPC, but the Officer In-charge of East Agartala Police Station did

not register the complaint under the said provision of the Code.

Mr. Lodh, learned counsel further inviting my attention to the

decision of the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of

Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 and the

decision of this Court, passed in WP(Crl.) No.32 of 2015, titled

as Sri Anal Haque vs. State of Tripura & Ors., decided on

24.09.2015, has tried to persuade this Court to draw/initiate

Contempt of Courts proceedings against the Superintendent of

Police, West Tripura District and the Officer In-charge of East

Agartala Police Station.

 Page - 5 of 14

7. While deciding the case of Sri Anal Haque(supra), the

Division Bench of this Court had observed thus:

“[7] What is even more shocking in this case is that on

27th May, 2015, Shri Anal Haque the petitioner herein,
submitted another written complaint to the
Superintendent of Police, Sepahijala with a copy to the
SDPO, Sonamura praying that proper investigation be
done in the case of the murder of his brother. He clearly
alleged that Roma Akthar and her associates has
strangulated his brother and caused his death. This is a
complaint made not to a lowly Official but to the
Superintendent of Police who is the head of the police in
the District. What the Superintendent of Police did was
indeed shocking. Instead of recording an FIR he ordered
that inquiry be started under Section 157 Cr.P.C. and only
a GD entry No.1395 was made. We fail to understand how
an inquiry under 157 Cr.P.C. can be started without first
recording an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. There can be
no investigation under Section 157 Cr.P.C. unless there is
information of commission of a cognizable or non-
cognizable offence. If the offence is non-cognizable then
permission of the Magistrate will have to be obtained
before investigating the matter. But if the offence is
cognizable then the police officer can start investigating
the matter but is required to immediately send the
information on which the investigation has started to the
Magistrate concern.”

8. Referring to the communication dated 19.05.2019, Mr.

Bhowmik, learned Advocate General has tried to persuade this

Court that, immediately after the receipt of the report from the

investigating officer of the case, the SP, West Tripura District

 Page - 6 of 14

directed the Officer In-charge of East Agartala Police Station on

06.05.2019 to register the FIR since the complaint disclosed non-

cognizable offence. The Superintendent of Police having found

some irregularities in registering of the FIR, already has taken note

of the conduct of the said Officer-In-charge and has imposed

penalty of “severe censure”. Moreover, the Superintendent of

Police, West Tripura District has also initiated a disciplinary

proceeding against the Officer In-Charge of East Agartala Police

Station. Mr. Bhowmik, learned Advocate General has further

submitted that there will be no repetition of such type of incident

in future in any of the Police Station throughout the State.

9. This Court in Anal Haque’s case taking a lenient view

had categorically observed that—

“In future, if any such case comes to the notice of this

Court, then this Court will not hesitate to initiate action as
required both under Lalita Kumari’s case and there will
be no excuse for any Police Officials if the FIR is not
lodged.”

10. In Lalita Kumari’s case, the Full Bench of the Apex

Court has held that— [SCC. p.59, para 114]

“114. It is true that a delicate balance has to be

maintained between the interest of the society and
protecting the liberty of an individual. As already
discussed above, there are already sufficient safeguards
provided in the Code which duly protect the liberty of an
individual in case of registration of false FIR. At the same
time, Section 154 was drafted keeping in mind the
 Page - 7 of 14

interest of the victim and the society. Therefore, we are of

the cogent view that mandatory registration of FIRs under
Section 154 of the Code will not be in contravention of
Article 21 of the Constitution as purported by various
counsel.”

11. In Lalita Kumari’s case, some exceptions were drawn,

as an instance, where allegations relating to medical negligence on

the part of the doctors are made.

12. In concluding paragraphs, the Apex Court in Lalita

Kumari’s case had passed the following directions:-[SCC. p.61,

paras 120 to 120.8]

“Conclusion/Directions:
120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
120.1. The 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.
120.2. 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.
120.3. 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.
120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of
registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed.
 Page - 8 of 14

Action must be taken against erring officers who do not

register the FIR if information received by him discloses a
cognizable offence.
120.5. 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.
120.6. 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
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.

120.7. 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.

120.8. 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
 Page - 9 of 14

meticulously reflected in the said diary and the decision to

conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as
mentioned above.”

13. From the facts emanated above, it appears to be

shocking to this Court that, though the writ petitioner approached

the Officer In-charge of East Agartala Police Station, the

respondent No.4 herein to lodge his complaint on 28.04.2019, but,

the Officer In-charge of the said Police Station did not think it

necessary to register the complaint or to make any inquiry.

14. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has painstakingly submitted

that in spite of repeated attempts and persuasions, the Officer In-

charge, seemed to be very apathetic for the reasons best known to

him and did not register the FIR. What appeared more shocking is

that, the Officer In-charge called the accused persons in the police

station, but later on, they were released with a proposal to the

complainant to compromise the matter. This Court is at a loss to

understand, what prompted the Officer In-charge of the East

Agartala Police Station to settle up the matter and to release the

accused persons, when the contents of the complaint itself

disclosed the commission of cognizable offence, over and above,

when the writ petitioner was crying for justice. This Court is also in

doubt, whether the Officer In-charge at all went through the

contents of the complaint, the complainant wanted to lodge

against the accused persons. This is a sheer dereliction in the

discharge of his official duty.

 Page - 10 of 14

15. The Superintendent of Police, West Tripura District also

seemed to be not so diligent to the persuasions made by the

complainant to register the FIR on the basis of the complaint

lodged by the writ petitioner.

16. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has invited my attention to

the application, the writ petitioner submitted to the Superintendent

of Police(respondent No.3) under Section 154(3) of the CrPC

narrating the entire episode and the role of the respondent No.4,

but, he also was not found to take up the matter seriously. As it

was stated in the preceding paragraphs that the respondent

No.3(the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura District) only has

taken action after the receipt of the report submitted by the

investigating officer on 05.05.2019 and on 06.05.2019 he directed

the respondent No.4, the Officer In-charge to register the FIR.

17. But, only on 15.05.2019, the Officer In-charge

registered the FIR on the basis of the complaint. What prompted

the Officer In-charge of the East Agartala Police Station to register

the FIR even after the direction of the Superintendent of Police,

West Tripura District is not understandable to this Court. The

Superintendent of Police also did not take up the matter seriously

as it was expected from him. He should have the knowledge of the

progress of the case.

18. Mr. Bhowmik, learned Advocate General is in agreement

with this Court that many police officials are not serious to the
 Page - 11 of 14

above directions of the Apex Court as well as this Court as stated

supra. However, Mr. Bhowmik, learned Advocate General

undertakes today before this Court that he would ensure and take

all measures to inform the State Home Department as well as to

all the police officials of the State in regard to the directions of the

Apex Court and this Court as stated supra.

19. Mr. Ajit Pratap Singh, Superintendent of Police

appearing before this Court has offered his unconditional apology

for the incident and he undertakes that there will be no repetition

of similar kind of incident in future and from now he will take up

the matter very seriously in conformity with the directions passed

by this Court as well as by the Apex Court as emanated here-in-

above. Mr. Singh has also informed this Court that he has already

taken action against the erring police officer i.e. Sri Manik

Debnath, O/C, East Agartala P.S. imposing penalty of “severe

censure” and also started departmental enquiry against Sri Manik

Debnath, O/C East Agartala P.S. Mr. Ajit Pratap Singh has further

submitted that he will take all possible measures to motivate the

police officials under his control so that since now there is no

occasion to violate the direction passed by this Court in Anal

Haque’s case supra and the directions passed in Lalita Kumari’s

case supra. Mr. Singh with folded-hands has prayed to absolve

him, for this time, from any further action against him.

20. Situated thus, this Court again has taken a lenient view

on the basis of the submissions made by Mr. Bhowmik, learned

 Page - 12 of 14

Advocate General as well as Sri Ajit Pratap Singh, Superintendent

of Police, West Tripura District.

21. Accordingly, I absolve Mr. Ajit Pratap Singh,

Superintendent of Police, West Tripura District and refrain myself

for the last time from taking any action against him. But, it is

clarified that if, in future, any such complaint in the form of writ

petition comes before the Court, then, serious criminal action will

be drawn up against the erring police officials in accordance with

the established principles of law.

22. Coming to the question of showing leniency towards Sri

Manik Debnath, Officer In-charge of East Agartala Police Station,

as requested by learned Advocate General, I have given my

thoughtful consideration to the conduct of the said officer. He

personally appeared before this Court on 17.05.2019 when he was

asked to appear today along with all the records. In course of

hearing, the learned Advocate General could not give any

satisfactory answer to the delayed registration of the FIR in

connection with the complaint lodged by the writ petitioner. Sri

Manik Debnath, Officer In-Charge of East Agartala Police

Station(respondent No.4) also did not explain anything as to why

he refused to register the FIR despite the fact that the complaint of

the writ petitioner disclosed the commission of cognizable offence,

though, he stated that he was aware of the observation and

direction passed by this Court in Anal Haque’s case supra. Having

 Page - 13 of 14

considered the submission, I am in no mood to give him any

blanket concession for his unwarranted acts and commissions

emanated from his actions in registering the FIR out of the

complaint by the writ petitioner. However, taking a lenient view,

albeit, as a last opportunity to purify and rectify themselves, this

Court limits itself to only direct the respondent No.4 i.e. the

Officer-in-charge of East Agartala Police Station not to leave the

Court till 4.30 pm today.

23. At this stage, I deem it fit to direct the Superintendent

of Police, West Tripura District to personally supervise the

investigation of the case so that the writ petitioner-complainant

shall not be prejudiced in any manner whatsoever.

24. The lenient view I have taken against the erring police

officers as stated supra only due to the fact that they offered

unconditional apology for their acts and commissions, but it is

made clear that this is the last, and the last, only; and if this Court

receives such kind of complaint in future, then, it will not refrain

itself from taking appropriate action in accordance with law

keeping in mind the direction passed by the Apex Court in the case

of Lalita Kumari(supra).

25. It is re-stated that as soon as any complaint is received

by the concerned Officer-in-charge of a police station, the same is

to be registered keeping in mind the mandate of Section 154 of

CrPC and the relevant provisions i.e. under Regulations 243, 244
 Page - 14 of 14

of the Police Regulations of Bengal(PRB) and in conformity with the

spirit and directions passed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex

Court in the case of Lalita Kumari(supra).

26. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the

instant writ petition is disposed of.

JUDGE