Table of Contents
Police must conduct preliminary enquiry before lodging FIR in commercial cases: Rajasthan High Court
The constitutional chamber of the Rajasthan High Court reached a decision in the present case and stated that the officials of the police should conduct some initial investigation in situations where the dispute is commercial in nature before proceeding to register of the FIR in the matter [Rana Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. ].
This has been seen in Justice Arun Monga’s order which was made in a case where he found that an FIR was registered in complete abuse of police powers for a civil dispute between private parties.
The Court has now asked the police of Rajasthan to make sure that before they go on registering FIRs in such matters which are purely of a commercial nature, a preliminary enquiry is conducted.
”It is considered necessary to provide directions to the police officials in the respondent State of Rajasthan to conduct a mandatory preliminary enquiry before they register FIR in matters of offences which are under sections 405/406 and 420 of IPC [Corresponding Sections 316 and 318 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023], where the transaction is purely commercial, sale and purchase of goods or even immovable property,
It also pointed out that the preliminary enquiry must preferably be completed within one week or 10 days at most in order to ensure that the alleged offender does not get any advantage to either conceal evidence or flee away when the preliminary enquiry is being conducted.
Justice Arun Monga
The Court was handling a case a complaint that the accused had refused to pay the complainant the amount of money as agreed upon after delivering some item(s) to two persons (accused). Thereafter an FIR was filed against the accused under Sections 406 of criminal Breach of Trust and 420 for cheating of the IPC.
These goods (which are estimated to be worth Rs. 25. 54 lakhs) were later recovered from a third party who happened to claim that he just bought the above goods. He defended that he bought the products from one among the two suspects.
This purchaser (petitioner) then moved the High Court seeking for the release of the said goods. His counsel further submitted that he could not be held legally responsible for any quarrel which may have existed between the accused men and the complainant.
The complainant who is a respondent in the High Court case alleged that the petitioner was an accomplice in the crime as stated.
The Court averred that the matter was purely a civil and private one between the original seller – the complainant, the buyers accused and the subsequent buyer who is the petitioner.
Therefore, the Court had stated that the FIR lodged did not reveal the commission of any crime or with police investigation or a criminal trial.
“There was no preliminary enquiry of any sort conducted,” the petition states that the complaint received in the police station was converted directly into an FIR.. “I am of the view [that it has been registered] in complete abuse of the police powers,” it added.
The Court also observed that the police had failed to follow the guidelines provided under the case of Lalita Kumari before filing of FIR.
It noted that in such cases, it is for the complainant to take proper civil legal actions against the offender for the purpose of recovering his money from the debtor and not for the police officials to act as his civil recovery agency in the devilish name of investigation wearing the police uniform.
In view of this position, the Court discharged the petitioner in the FIR of the case since the same would create unnecessary harassment and an ordeal to the petitioner and the other co-accused persons.
For the petitioner, advocates Mahendra Singh Rajpurohit was present.
For the State, the Public Prosecutor being SS Rajpurohit argued.
On the other hand, Shobha prabhakar appeared for the complainant in the case.
