PANAJI
The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Merces, has directed the Panaji police to register a First Information Report (FIR) on a complaint of alleged vehicle theft, saying the police took an “inappropriate approach” by demanding proof of ownership before acting on the complaint.
Judicial Magistrate Ankita Ramesh Nagvenkar said in her order that the complaint filed by Bhavit Bharat Parekh clearly showed a cognisable offence, and an FIR had to be registered. Parekh had moved the court under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita after the police failed to file the FIR.
The court noted that the Panaji police had asked the complainant to explain the ownership of the vehicle. It clarified that proof of ownership is not required at the stage of registering a theft case.
“From the complaint, it is clear that a cognisable offence has been alleged. Even if one offence is cognisable, the investigation agency must act on the complaint and register an FIR. Section 175(3) of the BNSS allows the court to direct the registration of an FIR if a cognisable offence is made out. The Respondents (North SP, Panaji police and Prosecution) were required to properly consider the complaint and act on it. Theft is a cognisable offence. Therefore, it is appropriate to direct Respondent No. 2 (Panaji police) to register the FIR and carry out the necessary investigation,” the order stated.
