Allowed

Hariom v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC26 Jun 2019A482/22721/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge held that under Section 154 CrPC, FIR registration is mandatory when information discloses a cognizable offence. Distinguishing Sukhwasi, the court relied on Lalita Kumari to allow the applicant's Section 156(3) CrPC application and set aside the lower court order refusing investigation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 20.05.2019 set aside; application allowed without notice; Local Special Judge directed to dispose afresh within one month.

Hariom Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22721 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Hariom Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ali Hasan,Istiyaq Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application has been filed preferred against the order dated 20.05.2019 passed by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Agra in Criminal Misc. Case No. 348 of 2019 (Hariom Vs. Ashok Sharma and others), under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., Police Station- Sadar Bazar, District- Agra.

¶7

The submission of the counsel for the applicant is that if from the perusal of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., a prima facie congnizable offence is made out, then the registration of FIR is mandatory because each and every complaint made to the police is required to be investigated for ascertaining the correctness of allegation of cognizable offence.

¶8

In view of the nature of allegations made by the applicant if the application the Magistrate ought to have allowed the same and directed the police has been concerned to investigate into the matter and thereafter submit a report.

¶9

Section 154 and 156 Cr. P. C. provides for the registration and investigation of complaint. The same are reproduced herein under:-

¶10

"154. Information in cognizable cases.

¶11

(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read Over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.

¶12

(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub- section (1)

¶13

shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.

¶14

(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in subsection (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence."

¶15

Section 156 Cr.P.C. is quoted herein below:-

¶16

"156. Police officer' s power to investigate cognizable case.

¶17

(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.

¶18

(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.

¶19

(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above- mentioned."

¶20

From the perusal of the aforesaid provision as well as Section 154 Cr.P.C., it is evident that the police can investigate into matters relating to commission of 'cognizable offences' brought to its notice under section 154 Cr.P.C. Officer-in-charge of police station has power to investigate U/S 156(1) in such case. Magistrate has power to take cognizance u/s 190 CrPC on receiving the 'complaint'. Thus the matter relating to section 156 (3) relates to power of Magistrate to order investigation by police in matters relating to cognizable offences brought before it through complaint. Complaint has been defined in section 2(d) CrPC of as follows : "complaint' means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a Police report." Code of Criminal Procedure has given different type of powers to deal with such matters relating to commission of cognizable offences when brought before it. A Division

¶21

bench of this Court in the case of '' Sukhwasi v. State of U.P., 2007(59) ACC 739 ' held as under:

¶22

"Applications under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are coming in torrents. Provisions under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. They should not be used unless there is something unusual and extra ordinary like miscarriage of justice which warrants a direction to the Police to register a case. Such application should not be allowed because the law provides them with an alternative remedy of filing a complaint, therefore, recourse should not normally be permitted for availing the provisions of section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶23

The reference is, therefore, answered in the manner that it is not incumbent upon a Magistrate to allow an application section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and there is no such legal mandate."

¶24

However, the said judgement does not provide any reason as to why FIR should not be registered in respect of a cognizable offence.

¶25

Learned counsel for the applicant-revisionist has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs Goverment of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in 2014 (2) SCC 1 . He has relied upon paragraph 111 of the aforesaid judgement, which is reproduced herein under:-

¶26

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:

¶27

"i) 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.

¶28

ii) 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.

¶29

iii) 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.

¶30

iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if

¶31

information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. v) 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.

¶32

vi) 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:

¶33

a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes b) Commercial offences c) Medical negligence cases d) Corruption cases

¶34

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.

¶35

The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.

¶36

vii) 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.

¶37

viii) 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 meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above."

¶38

In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 20.05.2019 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Agra cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. application succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage without issuing notice to the prospective accused persons as they have no right to be heard at pre-cognizance stage. The order dated 20.05.2019 is consequently set aside.

¶39

The Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Agra is directed to exercise his discretionary power and decide afresh the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant-revisionist and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made by this court, within a period of one

¶40

month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶41

With the aforesaid directions, the present applicant is allowed .

¶42

Order Date :- 26.6.2019 Rohit

Hariom v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariom v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Ram @ Ram Pandit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Narayan Babu Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bechan Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devendra Dhama and another Vs State of U.P. and another

Subhash Jain Vs State of Up

Afzal Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. and another