The court disposed of the writ petition by reiterating Supreme Court directions that police must register an FIR if a complaint discloses a cognizable offence under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and subject a non-cooperative officer to action.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No. 17165 of 2016
ORDER:
The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that he gave a report to the police on 17.05.2016 seeking action against the villagers for interfering with repairs of fish tank and bunds, but, the police are not showing any interest or not taking any action against the said report.
2. The scope and import of the statutory obligation of the police to register a FIR upon receiving a complaint is no longer res integra. In
Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh[1] , the Supreme Court, speaking through a Constitution Bench, summarized the law in connection with the registration of crimes as under:
1. The registration of a FIR is mandatory under Section 154 Cr.P.C., if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
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 a cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where the 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 the reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
4. A police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering a FIR if a 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.
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.
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:
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.
8. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of a 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 therein.
3. In the light of the aforestated settled legal position and since the allegations prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offence, it is not open to the police authorities to deviate therefrom or show any tardiness in taking appropriate necessary action in case a complaint alleging cognizable criminal offence is received by them. In the event the offence alleged is a non-cognizable one, the police authorities are bound to follow the due procedure laid down in Section 155 Cr.P.C. In any event, the police authorities must take suitable action in the matter in case of receipt of report disclosing cognizable offence, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. However, it is needless to mention that in case the crime is registered for offences which are punishable with imprisonment for a period of seven years or less, the police authorities shall follow the judgment of the Apex Court
in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and anothe r[2] .
4. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of reiterating the aforestated directions of the Supreme Court.
5. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.
_____________________ JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
03.06.2016 vhb
[1] (2014) 2 SCC 1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether police authorities are bound to register an FIR when allegations disclose a cognizable offence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar PradeshRelied on¶6
Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh [1] (2014) 2 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and anotherReferred¶22
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another [2] 2014 (2) ALT (Crl.) 457 (SC)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Police Authorities
Praveen Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
