P.G.Pitchaia Vs. 1.The State Rep. by - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1169822
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnNov-04-2013
JudgeM.VENUGOPAL
AppellantP.G.Pitchaia
Respondent1.The State Rep. by
Excerpt:
before the madurai bench of madras high court dated:04. 11/2013 coram the hon'ble mr.justice m.venugopal crl.r.c.(md) no.579 of 2013 p.g.pitchaiah ..petitioner/complainant vs 1.the state rep. by the inspector of police, district crime branch police station, tirunelveli district. 2.i.a.chidambaram s/o agilandam elangi educational society cum elangi ramasamy higher secondary school, elangi. 3.i.k.subramanian s/o courtallam, secretary, elangi educational society cum elangi ramasamy higher secondary school, elangi. ...respondents (r2 and r3 impleaded as per the order of this court in m.p.(md)no.1 of 2013) prayer criminal revision petition filed under sections 397 and 401 of criminal procedure code to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in cr.m.p.no.3864 fo 2013 dated 15.04.2013 by the learned district munsif cum judicial magistrate, shenkottai, set aside the same. !for petitioner ... mr.a.jayaramachandaran ^for r1 ... mr.p.kandasamy government advocate for r2 & r3 ... mr.n.ananda padmanbhan :order the petitioner/complainant has focussed the present criminal revision case before this court as against the order dated 15.04.2013 in crl.m.p.no.3864 of 2013 passed by the learned district munsif-cum-judicial magistrate, shenkottai.2. the learned district munsif-cum-judicial magistrate, shenkottai, while passing the order dated 15.04.2013 in crl.m.p.no.3864 of 2013 has, among other things, observed that 'proper orders have been passed on the complaint filed before this court and as on date based on the complaint filed before this court, fir in crime no.11 of 2013 for the offence under section 420 of i.p.c was registered on the file of tirunelveli district crime branch police station and the investigation is pending. under this circumstance, there is no need to grant the relief prayed for in the petition, as opined by this court' and resultantly dismissed the petition under section 203 of criminal procedure code.3. being dissatisfied with the order of dismissal dated 15.04.2013 in crl.m.p.no.3864 of 2013 passed by the learned district munsif-cum-judicial magistrate, shenkottai, the revision petition, as an aggrieved person, has filed the present criminal revision before this court, contending that the impugned order passed by the trial court is contrary to law and the same is liable to be set aside.4. the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ complainant urges before this court that the trial court has passed the impugned order in crl.m.p.no.3864 of 2013 dated 15.04.2013 without applying the law in a proper prospective and also on wrong appreciation of factual aspects.5. advancing his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court has to issue a memo to the higher officials of the police namely either the superintendent of police or the deputy superintendent of police as the case may be directing the concerned to initiate disciplinary action in respect of the concerned station house officer for non-compliance of the learned magistrate's order dated 06.03.2013 wherein the learned district munsif -cum- judicial magistrate, shenkottai, was pleased to direct the first respondent to investigate the petitioner's complaint and in the instant case the said order was not complied with by the first respondent.6. it is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequently the learned district munsif -cum- judicial magistrate, shenkottai, issued a memo in letter no.1692 dated 30.03.2013 to the first respondent directing him to appear before the court and to give explanation for non compliance of the court's order. added further, the learned counsel for the petitioner brings it notice of this court that after receiving the memo, the sub inspector of police attached to the first respondent/police station appeared before the learned district munsif-cum-judicial magistrate, shenkottai, on 06.04.2013 and reported that the fir was registered based on the petitioner's complaint on 04.04.2013 in crime no.11 of 2013 in respect of an offence under section 420 of ipc. 7.the prime submission of the learned counsel for the revision petition/complainant is that the first respondent failed to comply with the order of the learned district munsif -cum- judicial magistrate, shenkottai, dated 06.03.2013 wherein a direction was given to the first respondent to investigate the petitioner's complaint and to submit a report and since that was not complied with on the part of the first respondent at the earlier point of time, the said act was nothing but dereliction of duty, which attracts section 7 of the police act, 1861 and section 217 of the indian penal code.8. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed crl.m.p.no.3864 of 2013 under section 156(3) of cr.p.c on the file of the trial court praying for necessary action to be taken against the respondent(first respondent in criminal revision case) for dereliction of duty etc. in effect, the petitioner has sought for action being taking against the respondent by issuing necessary direction to tirunelveli deputy superintendent of police under section 156(3) of cr.p.c. 9.the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a reference to section 217 of indian penal code and section 7 of police act which runs as under:217. public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture : - whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending thereby to save or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or subject him to a less punishment than that to what he is liable, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or any charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to two years, or with fine, or with both. 7.appointment, dismissal, etc., of inferior officers: - subject to the provisions of article 311 of the constitution, and to such rules as the state government may from time to time make under this act, the inspector-general, deputy inspector - general, assistant inspectors- general and any police officer of the subordinate ranks whom they shall think remiss or negligent in the discharge of his duty, or unfit for the same, or may award any one or more of the following punishment, to any police-officer of the subordinate rank who shall discharge his duty in a careless or negligent manner, or who by any act of his own shall render himself unfit for the discharge thereof namely- (a) fine to any amount not exceeding one month's pay; (b) confinement to quarters for a term not exceeding fifteen days, with or without punishment-drill, extra guard, fatigue or other duty; (c)deprivation of good conduct pay; (d) removal from any officer of distinction or special emolument.10. that part, the learned counsel places reliance on the decision reported in 2008(7) scc164in the case of lalitha kumari vs. government of uttar pradesh and others wherein it has been held in paragraph nos. 4 and 5 as follows:4. it is a matter of experience of one of us (b.n.agrawal. j) while acting as judge of the patna high court, chief justice of the orissa high court and judge of this court that in spite of law laid down by this court, the police authorities concerned do not register firs unless some direction is given by the chief judicial magistrate or the high court of this court. further, experience shows that even after orders are passed by the courts concerned for registration of the case, the police does not take the necessary steps and when matters are brought to the notice of the inspecting judges of the high court during the course of inspection of the courts and superintendents of police are taken to task, then only firs are registered. in a large number of cases investigations do not commence even after registration of firs and in a case like the present one, steps are not taken for recovery of the kidnapped person or apprehending the accused person with reasonable dispatch. at times it has been found that when harsh orders are passed by the members of the judiciary in a state, the police becomes hostile to them, for instance, in bihar when a bail petition filed by a police personnel, who was the accused was rejected by a member of the bihar superior judicial service, he was assaulted in the courtroom for which contempt proceeding was initiated by the patna high court and the erring police officials were convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment. 5.on the other hand, there are innumerable cases that where the complainant is a practical person, firs are registered immediately, copies thereof are made over to the complainant on the same day, investigation proceeds with supersonic jet speed, immediate steps are taken for apprehending the accused and recovery of the kidnapped persons and the properties which were the subject - matter of theft or decoity. in the case before us allegations have been made that the station house officer of the police station concerned is pressurising the complainant to withdraw the complaint, which, if true, is a very disturbing state of affairs. we do not know, there may be innumerable such instances.11. that part, the learned counsel places reliance on the decision in criminal revision no.2308 of 2009 dated 08.06.2009. in paragraph nos.30 to 32 it is observed and held as follows:30. it is high time now that this court must endeavour to find out some ways to make the police authority adhere to their statutory duties. the time perhaps has ripened when this court in exercise of its inherent power must look into this disease in a more serious manner and find out ways by issuing appropriate directions to the concerned authorities, which may result in compelling the police authorities either to observe their statutory duties faithfully or to face consequences.31. in the above facts and circumstances this revision is allowed: the impugned order dated 13.02.2009 passed by special judge (d.a.a.) farrukhabas in misc. case no.04.12.2008 (roop ram vs. sonu and another) is hereby set aside. the matter is remanded back to the special judge(d.a.a.) farrukhabad to re- consider the application of the revisionist and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 32.considering the above observations this court gives further the following directions:32. considering the above observations this court gives further the following directions: (i) when a police officer-in-charge of the police station or any other police officer, acting under the directions of the officer-in-charge of the police station was unjust or for reasons other than valid, and where he directs for investigation, he shall initiate disciplinary proceedings against the officer-in-charge of the police station for such non observance of statutory obligation treating the same to be a serious misconduct justifying a major penalty and complete the proceedings within three months from the date he passes an order for investigation into the matter. (ii) where, the informant approaches the magistrate concerned under section 156(3) of the code and the magistrate ultimately finds that information discloses a cognizable offence and direct the police to proceed for investigation, he shall cause a copy of the order sent to superintendent of police/senior superintendent of police (hereinafter referred to as the s.p./s.s.p. shall cause a disciplinary inquiry into the matter to find out the person guilty of such dereliction of duty i.e failure to discharge statutory obligation i.e registration of an information disclosing cognizable offence treating the said failure as a serious misconduct justifying major penalty and shall complete the disciplinary proceedings within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order from the concerned magistrate, after completing the disciplinary proceedings, the s.p./s.s.p. concerned shall inform about the action taken against the concerned police officer-in-charge of the police station to the magistrate concerned within 15 days from the date of action taken by him but not later than four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order from the magistrate concerned. (iv)the magistrate concerned shall review the caes in which the copy of the orders passed under section 156(3) of the code has been sent to concerned s.p./s.s.p quarterly and when it is found that the concerned s.p./s.s.p. has also failed to comply with the above directions of this court, he shall sent a copy of his order along with the information about non-compliance of this court's order/direction by the concerned s.p./s.s.p to the director general of police, u.p., lucknow and the principal secretary (home), u.p., lucknow who shall look into the matter and take appropriate action as directed above against the police officer-in-charge of the police station concerned as well as the s.p./s/s/p concerned for his inaction also into th ematter within three months and communicate about the action within next one month to the magistrate concerned. the principal secretary (home), u.p lucknow and the director general of police, u.p lucknow shall also submit a report regarding number of the caes informed by the concerned magistrate in a calender year and also the action taken, by them as directed above by the end of february of every year to the registrar general of this court. (v) besides above, non compliance of the above directions of this court shall also be treated to be a deliberate defiance by the concerned authorities above mentioned constituting contempt of this cout and may be taken up before the court concerned having jurisdiction in the matter, whenever it is brought to the notice of this court. the registrar general of this court is directed to send a copy of this order forthwith to the principal secretary(home), u.p lucknow, the director general of police, u.p lucknow so that they may issue necessary instructions in respect of the compliance of the various directions contained in the judgment to the concerned s.p/s.s.p of the concerned districts of the state of u.p and also to the various police officers-in-charge of the concerned police stations apprising them about the directions of this court and for compliance thereof.12. while winding up his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the first respondent is duty bound to initiate legal action by complying with the order passed by the trial court and failure in this regard is nothing but dereliction of duty for which, the concerned person is to be penalised in accordance with law.13. per contra, it is forceful submission of the learned government advocate(crl.side) for the first respondent that if the order of the learned district munsif-cum-judicial magistrate, shenkottai, dated 06.03.2013 was not complied then only the petitioner is to invoke the ingredients of section 7 of the police act coupled with section 217 of i.p.c. but in the instant case on hand, in crime no.11 of 2013 on the file of tirunelveli district crime branch police station fir was registered based on the complaint on 04.04.2013 against the three accused and thoroughly investigated the matter and a final report was filed on 29.04.2013 on the file of the trial court as 'mistake of fact'. further, referred notice was also served on the petitioner on 28.04.2013. as such it cannot be said that the investigating officer had committed dereliction of duty or willfull disobedience of any direction issued by the competent court of law.14. earlier, m.p.(md) no.1 of 2013 was filed on behalf of the impleading petitioners praying for permission of this court to implead them as second and third respondents in the criminal revision petition no.579 of 2013 and the same was allowed by this court on 25.09.2013.15. it is the contention of the learned counsel for r2 and r3 (impleading petitioners) that initially the revision petition filed a complaint dated 10.10.2013 against the second and third petitioners through registered post before the first respondent and said complaint was investigated by the first respondent/police a conclusion was arrived at that there was no prima facie case in the complaint. thereupon the petitioner was perforced to file a petition on the file of the learned chief judicial magistrate, shenkottai, and in the said petition, the following order was passed by the trial court on 06.03.2013 which runs as under: 'heard. perused. this complaint is forwarded to the inspector of police, district crime branch, tirunelveli district under section 156(3) of cr.p.c. to investigate and report.16. later, learned district munsif -cum- judicial magistrate, shenkottai, issued a memo in letter no.1692 dated 30.03.2013 to the first respondent directing him to appear before the court and to give his explanation for non compliance of the court's order. soon after the receipt of the memo, the sub inspector of police attached to the first respondent appeared before the trial court on 06.04.2013 and reported that fir was registered based on the petitioner's complaint dated 04.04.2013 in crime no.11 of 2013 in respect of an offence under section 420 of ipc. after fir being registered by the first respondent/police, the petitioner filed crl.m.p.no.3864 of 2013 under section 156(3) of cr.p.c. 17.it is to be remembered that section 156(3) of cr.p.c provides for a check by the magistrate on police performing their duties. when a magistrate finds that police have not done their duty or not investigated satisfactorily, then he can direct the police to carry out the investigation properly and can monitor the same as per decision of hon'ble supreme court in 2011(12)scc328in t.c.thangaraj vs. engammal.18. at this stage, it is to be pointed out that before applying the ingredients of section 217 of indian penal code the following conditions are to be fulfilled. (a) there must be an intentional disobedience of law by a public servant (b)such disobedience must be with intention to save, or knowledge that he will thereby(a) save a person from legal punishment; or (b) save any property from forfeiture or charge to which it is liable by law.19. indeed, the prosecution must establish (i) that the accused was a public servant; (ii)that he conducted himself in the particular manner charged; (iii)that such conduct was in the exercise of his duties as such public servant; (iv) that such conduct was in disobedience to a direction of law; (v) that when the accused disobeyed such direction of law, he did so knowingly; (vi) that when he was guilty of such disobedience he intended to, or knew that it was likely that he would thereby, save(a) some person from punishment, or subject some person to a less punishment than that to which he was liable; or (b) some property from forfeiture or a charge to which it was liable; or c that such punishment, etc., was legally enforceable, or that such forfeiture, or charge was a legal liability.20. it cannot be gain said that section 217 of i.p.c makes punishable a certain dereliction of duty quite apart from the question as to whether any bribe is paid to induce such dereliction. the dereliction must clearly, from the nature of the definition of the offence, be committed in the discharge of the functions of the person charged as per decision of hossain s b air1947cal page 29. one cannot brush aside the important fact that the duty of investigating officer is not to bolster of the prosecution case, but to bring out real unvanished truth as per decision reported in air1974supreme court 1822 in jamuna chaudhary and others vs. state of bihar.21. it is to be borne in mind that the relief prayed for by the revision petitioner in crl.m.p.no.3864 of 2013 on the file of the trial court in law cannot be asked for by him either as a matter of routine or as a matter of course. in fact, a heavy burden is cast upon him to establish his version of the case as projected by him in crl.m.p.no.3864 of 2013 as opined by this court. 22.on a careful consideration of respective contentions and in view of the fact that the first respondent/police at later point of time had registered the fir in crime no.11 of 2013 under section 420 of ipc on the file of tirunelveli district crime branch police station and also the same was reportedly pending investigation at the time of passing of the order by the learned district munsif -cum- judicial magistrate, shenkottai, and also at the later point of time the said fir was closed as 'mistake of fact' by the first respondent/police, and also this court on going through the tenor of the order passed by the learned district munsif -cum- judicial magistrate, shenkottai, in crl.m.p.no.3864 of 2013 dated 15.04.2013 comes to a inevitable and inescapable conclusion that there is nothing in the order of the learned district munsif - cum- judicial magistrate, shenkottai, to suggest that the said fir in crime no.11 of 2013 under section 420 of ipc was registered diligently by the first respondent/police and also no finding was given in this regard as to whether the first respondent complied with the order of the court dated 06.03.2013 in true letter and spirit without any default/ deviation/violation whatsoever.23. since the impugned order in crl.m.p.no.3864 of 2013 dated 15.04.2013 only points out that 'since fir in crime no.11 of 2013 was registered under section 420 of ipc and the same is pending etc there was no necessity to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner' is not a legally tenable one in the eye of law. in fact, the said order is liable to be interfered with in the interest of justice by this court. as such this court interferes with the order passed learned district munsif -cum- judicial magistrate, shenkottai,in crl.m.p.no.3864 of 2013 dated 15.04.2013 since it is not a reasoned, speaking order in the matter in issue, in the considered opinion of this court. consequently, the revision succeeds.24. in the result, the revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned district munsif -cum- judicial magistrate, shenkottai, in crl.m.p.no.3864 of 2013 is hereby set aside by this court for the reasons assigned in this revision. the learned district munsif -cum- judicial magistrate, shenkottai, is directed to restore crl.m.p.no.3864 of 2013 to file and to pass a reasoned, speaking fresh order spelling out necessary qualitative and quantitative details while considering the prayer of the petitioner on merits (after ascertaining from the first respondent as to why it took nearly a month's time from 06.03.2013 in filing fir) ofcourse and after providing due opportunities to the respective party in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. to, 1. the district munsif cum judicial magistrate, shenkottai.2. the inspector of police,district crime branch police station,tirunelveli district.3. the additional public prosecutor, madurai bench of madras high court, 
Judgment:

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:

04. 11/2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL CRL.R.C.(MD) No.579 of 2013 P.G.Pitchaiah ..Petitioner/Complainant Vs 1.The State rep. By the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 2.I.A.Chidambaram S/o Agilandam Elangi Educational Society Cum Elangi Ramasamy Higher Secondary School, Elangi. 3.I.K.Subramanian S/o Courtallam, Secretary, Elangi Educational Society Cum Elangi Ramasamy Higher Secondary School, Elangi. ...Respondents (R2 and R3 impleaded as per the order of this Court in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013) Prayer Criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.3864 fo 2013 dated 15.04.2013 by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai, set aside the same. !For Petitioner ... Mr.A.Jayaramachandaran ^For R1 ... Mr.P.Kandasamy Government Advocate For R2 & R3 ... Mr.N.Ananda Padmanbhan :ORDER

The Petitioner/Complainant has focussed the present Criminal Revision case before this Court as against the order dated 15.04.2013 in Crl.M.P.No.3864 of 2013 passed by the Learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai.

2. The Learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai, while passing the order dated 15.04.2013 in Crl.M.P.No.3864 of 2013 has, among other things, observed that 'proper orders have been passed on the complaint filed before this Court and as on date based on the complaint filed before this Court, FIR in Crime No.11 of 2013 for the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C was registered on the file of Tirunelveli District Crime Branch Police Station and the investigation is pending. Under this circumstance, there is no need to grant the relief prayed for in the petition, as opined by this Court' and resultantly dismissed the petition under Section 203 of Criminal Procedure Code.

3. Being dissatisfied with the order of dismissal dated 15.04.2013 in Crl.M.P.No.3864 of 2013 passed by the Learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai, the Revision Petition, as an aggrieved person, has filed the present Criminal Revision before this Court, contending that the impugned order passed by the trial court is contrary to law and the same is liable to be set aside.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/ Complainant urges before this Court that the trial court has passed the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.3864 of 2013 dated 15.04.2013 without applying the law in a proper prospective and also on wrong appreciation of factual aspects.

5. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the trial court has to issue a Memo to the higher officials of the police namely either the Superintendent of Police or the Deputy Superintendent of Police as the case may be directing the concerned to initiate disciplinary action in respect of the concerned Station House Officer for non-compliance of the learned Magistrate's order dated 06.03.2013 wherein the Learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai, was pleased to direct the First Respondent to investigate the petitioner's complaint and in the instant case the said order was not complied with by the First Respondent.

6. It is the further contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that subsequently the Learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai, issued a Memo in Letter No.1692 dated 30.03.2013 to the First Respondent directing him to appear before the court and to give explanation for non compliance of the Court's order. Added further, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it notice of this Court that after receiving the Memo, the Sub Inspector of Police attached to the First Respondent/Police Station appeared before the Learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai, on 06.04.2013 and reported that the FIR was registered based on the petitioner's complaint on 04.04.2013 in Crime No.11 of 2013 in respect of an offence under Section 420 of IPC. 7.The prime submission of the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petition/Complainant is that the First Respondent failed to comply with the order of the Learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai, dated 06.03.2013 wherein a direction was given to the First Respondent to investigate the petitioner's complaint and to submit a report and since that was not complied with on the part of the First Respondent at the earlier point of time, the said Act was nothing but dereliction of duty, which attracts Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 and Section 217 of the Indian Penal Code.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner filed Crl.M.P.NO.3864 of 2013 under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C on the file of the trial court praying for necessary action to be taken against the Respondent(First Respondent in Criminal Revision Case) for dereliction of duty etc. In effect, the petitioner has sought for action being taking against the Respondent by issuing necessary direction to Tirunelveli Deputy Superintendent of Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 9.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has made a reference to Section 217 of Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of Police Act which runs as under:

217. Public Servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture : - Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending thereby to save or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or subject him to a less punishment than that to what he is liable, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or any charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to two years, or with fine, or with both. 7.Appointment, dismissal, etc., of inferior officers: - Subject to the provisions of Article 311 of the constitution, and to such rules as the State Government may from time to time make under this Act, the Inspector-General, Deputy Inspector - General, Assistant Inspectors- General and any police officer of the subordinate ranks whom they shall think remiss or negligent in the discharge of his duty, or unfit for the same, or may award any one or more of the following punishment, to any police-officer of the subordinate rank who shall discharge his duty in a careless or negligent manner, or who by any act of his own shall render himself unfit for the discharge thereof namely- (a) fine to any amount not exceeding one month's pay; (b) confinement to quarters for a term not exceeding fifteen days, with or without punishment-drill, extra guard, fatigue or other duty; (c)deprivation of good conduct pay; (d) removal from any officer of distinction or special emolument.

10. That part, the Learned Counsel places reliance on the decision reported in 2008(7) SCC164in the case of Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others wherein it has been held in paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 as follows:

4. It is a matter of experience of one of us (B.N.Agrawal. J) while acting as Judge of the Patna High Court, Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court and Judge of this Court that in spite of law laid down by this Court, the police authorities concerned do not register FIRs unless some direction is given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the High Court of this Court. Further, experience shows that even after orders are passed by the Courts concerned for registration of the case, the police does not take the necessary steps and when matters are brought to the notice of the inspecting Judges of the High Court during the course of inspection of the Courts and Superintendents of Police are taken to task, then only FIRs are registered. In a large number of cases investigations do not commence even after registration of FIRs and in a case like the present one, steps are not taken for recovery of the kidnapped person or apprehending the accused person with reasonable dispatch. At times it has been found that when harsh orders are passed by the members of the judiciary in a State, the police becomes hostile to them, for instance, in Bihar when a bail petition filed by a police personnel, who was the accused was rejected by a member of the Bihar Superior Judicial service, he was assaulted in the courtroom for which contempt proceeding was initiated by the Patna High Court and the erring police officials were convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment. 5.On the other hand, there are innumerable cases that where the complainant is a practical person, FIRs are registered immediately, copies thereof are made over to the complainant on the same day, investigation proceeds with supersonic jet speed, immediate steps are taken for apprehending the accused and recovery of the kidnapped persons and the properties which were the subject - matter of theft or decoity. In the case before us allegations have been made that the Station House Officer of the police station concerned is pressurising the complainant to withdraw the complaint, which, if true, is a very disturbing state of affairs. We do not know, there may be innumerable such instances.

11. That part, the Learned Counsel places reliance on the decision in Criminal Revision No.2308 of 2009 dated 08.06.2009. In paragraph Nos.30 to 32 it is observed and held as follows:

30. It is high time now that this Court must endeavour to find out some ways to make the police authority adhere to their statutory duties. The time perhaps has ripened when this Court in exercise of its inherent power must look into this disease in a more serious manner and find out ways by issuing appropriate directions to the concerned authorities, which may result in compelling the police authorities either to observe their statutory duties faithfully or to face consequences.

31. In the above facts and circumstances this revision is allowed: The impugned order dated 13.02.2009 passed by Special Judge (D.A.A.) Farrukhabas in Misc. Case No.04.12.2008 (Roop Ram Vs. Sonu and another) is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Special Judge(D.A.A.) Farrukhabad to re- consider the application of the revisionist and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 32.Considering the above observations this Court gives further the following directions:

32. Considering the above observations this Court gives further the following directions: (i) When a Police Officer-in-Charge of the police station or any other police officer, acting under the directions of the Officer-in-Charge of the police station was unjust or for reasons other than valid, and where he directs for investigation, he shall initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Officer-in-Charge of the police station for such non observance of statutory obligation treating the same to be a serious misconduct justifying a major penalty and complete the proceedings within three months from the date he passes an order for investigation into the matter. (ii) Where, the informant approaches the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) of the Code and the Magistrate ultimately finds that information discloses a cognizable offence and direct the police to proceed for investigation, he shall cause a copy of the order sent to Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police (hereinafter referred to as the S.P./S.S.P. Shall cause a disciplinary inquiry into the matter to find out the person guilty of such dereliction of duty i.e failure to discharge statutory obligation i.e registration of an information disclosing cognizable offence treating the said failure as a serious misconduct justifying major penalty and shall complete the disciplinary proceedings within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order from the concerned Magistrate, After completing the disciplinary proceedings, the S.P./S.S.P. Concerned shall inform about the action taken against the concerned police Officer-in-Charge of the police station to the Magistrate concerned within 15 days from the date of action taken by him but not later than four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order from the Magistrate concerned. (iv)The Magistrate concerned shall review the caes in which the copy of the orders passed under Section 156(3) of the Code has been sent to concerned S.P./S.S.P quarterly and when it is found that the concerned S.P./S.S.P. Has also failed to comply with the above directions of this court, he shall sent a copy of his order along with the information about non-compliance of this court's order/direction by the concerned S.P./S.S.P to the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow and the Principal Secretary (Home), U.P., Lucknow who shall look into the matter and take appropriate action as directed above against the police officer-in-charge of the police station concerned as well as the S.P./S/S/P concerned for his inaction also into th ematter within three months and communicate about the action within next one month to the Magistrate concerned. The Principal Secretary (Home), U.P Lucknow and the Director General of Police, U.P Lucknow shall also submit a report regarding number of the caes informed by the concerned Magistrate in a calender year and also the action taken, by them as directed above by the end of February of every year to the Registrar General of this Court. (v) Besides above, non compliance of the above directions of this Court shall also be treated to be a deliberate defiance by the concerned authorities above mentioned constituting contempt of this Cout and may be taken up before the Court concerned having jurisdiction in the matter, whenever it is brought to the notice of this Court. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order forthwith to the Principal Secretary(Home), U.P Lucknow, the Director General of Police, U.P Lucknow so that they may issue necessary instructions in respect of the compliance of the various directions contained in the judgment to the concerned S.P/S.S.P of the concerned districts of the State of U.P and also to the various Police Officers-in-Charge of the concerned police stations apprising them about the directions of this Court and for compliance thereof.

12. While winding up his argument, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the First Respondent is duty bound to initiate legal action by complying with the order passed by the trial court and failure in this regard is nothing but dereliction of duty for which, the concerned person is to be penalised in accordance with law.

13. Per contra, it is forceful submission of the Learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) for the First Respondent that if the order of the Learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai, dated 06.03.2013 was not complied then only the petitioner is to invoke the ingredients of Section 7 of the Police Act coupled with Section 217 of I.P.C. But in the instant case on hand, in Crime No.11 of 2013 on the file of Tirunelveli District Crime Branch Police Station FIR was registered based on the complaint on 04.04.2013 against the three accused and thoroughly investigated the matter and a final report was filed on 29.04.2013 on the file of the trial court as 'Mistake of Fact'. Further, Referred Notice was also served on the petitioner on 28.04.2013. As such it cannot be said that the Investigating Officer had committed dereliction of duty or willfull disobedience of any direction issued by the competent court of law.

14. Earlier, M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2013 was filed on behalf of the impleading petitioners praying for permission of this Court to implead them as Second and Third Respondents in the Criminal Revision Petition NO.579 of 2013 and the same was allowed by this court on 25.09.2013.

15. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for R2 and R3 (Impleading Petitioners) that initially the Revision Petition filed a complaint dated 10.10.2013 against the Second and Third Petitioners through Registered Post before the First Respondent and said complaint was investigated by the First Respondent/Police a conclusion was arrived at that there was no prima facie case in the complaint. Thereupon the petitioner was perforced to file a petition on the file of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai, and in the said petition, the following order was passed by the trial court on 06.03.2013 which runs as under: 'Heard. Perused. This complaint is forwarded to the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli District under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. To investigate and report.

16. Later, Learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai, issued a Memo in letter No.1692 dated 30.03.2013 to the First Respondent directing him to appear before the court and to give his explanation for non compliance of the Court's order. Soon after the receipt of the Memo, the Sub Inspector of Police attached to the First Respondent appeared before the trial court on 06.04.2013 and reported that FIR was registered based on the petitioner's complaint dated 04.04.2013 in Crime No.11 of 2013 in respect of an offence under Section 420 of IPC. After FIR being registered by the First Respondent/Police, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.3864 of 2013 under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 17.It is to be remembered that Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C provides for a check by the Magistrate on police performing their duties. When a Magistrate finds that police have not done their duty or not investigated satisfactorily, then he can direct the police to carry out the investigation properly and can monitor the same as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2011(12)SCC328in T.C.Thangaraj Vs. Engammal.

18. At this stage, it is to be pointed out that before applying the ingredients of Section 217 of Indian Penal Code the following conditions are to be fulfilled. (a) There must be an intentional disobedience of law by a public servant (b)such disobedience must be with intention to save, or knowledge that he will thereby(a) save a person from legal punishment; or (b) save any property from forfeiture or charge to which it is liable by law.

19. Indeed, the prosecution must establish (i) that the accused was a public servant; (ii)that he conducted himself in the particular manner charged; (iii)that such conduct was in the exercise of his duties as such public servant; (iv) that such conduct was in disobedience to a direction of law; (v) that when the accused disobeyed such direction of law, he did so knowingly; (vi) that when he was guilty of such disobedience he intended to, or knew that it was likely that he would thereby, save(a) some person from punishment, or subject some person to a less punishment than that to which he was liable; or (b) some property from forfeiture or a charge to which it was liable; or c that such punishment, etc., was legally enforceable, or that such forfeiture, or charge was a legal liability.

20. It cannot be gain said that Section 217 of I.P.C makes punishable a certain dereliction of duty quite apart from the question as to whether any bribe is paid to induce such dereliction. The dereliction must clearly, from the nature of the definition of the offence, be committed in the discharge of the functions of the person charged as per decision of Hossain S B AIR1947Cal page 29. One cannot brush aside the important fact that the duty of Investigating Officer is not to bolster of the prosecution case, but to bring out real unvanished truth as per decision reported in AIR1974Supreme Court 1822 in Jamuna Chaudhary and Others Vs. State of Bihar.

21. It is to be borne in mind that the relief prayed for by the Revision Petitioner in Crl.M.P.NO.3864 of 2013 on the file of the trial court in law cannot be asked for by him either as a matter of routine or as a matter of course. In fact, a heavy burden is cast upon him to establish his version of the case as projected by him in Crl.M.P.No.3864 of 2013 as opined by this Court. 22.On a careful consideration of respective contentions and in view of the fact that the First Respondent/Police at later point of time had registered the FIR in Crime No.11 of 2013 under Section 420 of IPC on the file of Tirunelveli District Crime Branch Police Station and also the same was reportedly pending investigation at the time of passing of the order by the Learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai, and also at the later point of time the said FIR was closed as 'mistake of fact' by the First Respondent/Police, and also this Court on going through the tenor of the order passed by the Learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai, in Crl.M.P.No.3864 of 2013 dated 15.04.2013 comes to a inevitable and inescapable conclusion that there is nothing in the order of the Learned District Munsif - cum- Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai, to suggest that the said FIR in Crime No.11 of 2013 under Section 420 of IPC was registered diligently by the First Respondent/Police and also no finding was given in this regard as to whether the First Respondent complied with the order of the court dated 06.03.2013 in true letter and spirit without any default/ deviation/violation whatsoever.

23. Since the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.3864 of 2013 dated 15.04.2013 only points out that 'since FIR in Crime No.11 of 2013 was registered under Section 420 of IPC and the same is pending etc there was no necessity to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner' is not a legally tenable one in the eye of law. In fact, the said order is liable to be interfered with in the interest of justice by this Court. As such this Court interferes with the order passed Learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai,in Crl.M.P.No.3864 of 2013 dated 15.04.2013 since it is not a reasoned, speaking order in the matter in issue, in the considered opinion of this Court. Consequently, the Revision succeeds.

24. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed by the Learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai, in Crl.M.P.No.3864 of 2013 is hereby set aside by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Revision. The Learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai, is directed to restore Crl.M.P.No.3864 of 2013 to file and to pass a reasoned, speaking fresh order spelling out necessary qualitative and quantitative details while considering the prayer of the petitioner on merits (after ascertaining from the first respondent as to why it took nearly a month's time from 06.03.2013 in filing FIR) ofcourse and after providing due opportunities to the respective party in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. To, 1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai.

2. The Inspector of Police,District Crime Branch Police Station,Tirunelveli District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,