The Karnataka High Court in the case M.Prakash v. The Superintendent Of Police observed and has said that issuance of multiple notices by the investigating agency to a person while carrying out preliminary enquiry into a case cannot be a ground for faltering the enquiry.
The Single Judge bench comprising of Justice Krishna S Dixit observed and has dismissed a petition filed by one M.Prakash, who questioned the action of police calling him for enquiry, short of investigation, without registering the offence.
In the present case, the prosecution opposed the petition plea banking upon the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. State of UP, (2014) 2 SCC 1. In this case, the Supreme Court held that registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of CrPC if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence. In such situations, no preliminary inquiry is permissible.
Further, if the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry and a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. Also, the Supreme Court clarified that 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. Further, what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
It is observed that the Supreme Court had nevertheless cautioned that a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. In the General Diary Entry, the facts of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected.
The High Court in this backdrop observed that the power to hold preliminary enquiry is recognized by the Apex Court in the decision supra. However, the duration of preliminary enquiry depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and ordinarily, that is in the domain of the investigating officer. Thus, the issuance of multiple notices is not a ground for faltering the enquiry in question.
Accordingly, the bench disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the Police shall not unnecessarily harass or arrest the petitioner, in the guise of preliminary enquiry.
