The Court reiterated that FIR registration is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC if a cognizable offence is disclosed. It directed authorities to follow Supreme Court guidelines on preliminary inquiries and noted that writs are not the appropriate remedy for non-registration.
none granted
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPCR No. 544 of 2018
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Punit Ruparel, Advocate For State : Shri Ashish Shukla, Dy.A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Order On Board
19/09/2018
The grievance raised by the petitioner in this petition is that despite report having been lodged, no action has been taken towards registration of FIR. The course of action required to be adopted where the report is lodged in the police station has been laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1 and following guidelines have been issued -
“120.1. The 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.
120.2. 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.
120.3. 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.
120.4. 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 information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
120.5. 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.
120.6. 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:
( a ) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
( b ) Commercial offences
( c ) Medical negligence cases
( d ) Corruption cases
( 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.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
120.7. While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made timebound 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.
120.8. 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.”
“27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Section 36 and 154 (3) before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”
The petitioner's complaint is therefore required to be examined in the light of the aforesaid judgment, in case, upon preliminary enquiry, the police does not find it to be a case of registration of offence.
Sd/-
(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge
Deepti
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the police are obligated to register an FIR upon lodging of a report if it discloses a cognizable offence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.Relied on¶22
Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and orsRelied on¶38
Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors, 2008 (2) SCC 409 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Dhalendra Kumar Swarnkar
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs (Police)
Director General Of Police, Raipur
Inspector General Of Police Range Janjgir Champa
Superintendent Of Police Janjgir Champa
Commissioner, Janjgir Champa Division
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
