CASE COMMENT
LALITHA KUMARI vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Criminal Appeal
W.P. (Crl) No. 68/2008
Petitioner- Lalitha Kumari
Respondent- Govt. of U.P and others
Bench- P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan, Ranjana
Prakash Desai, Ranjan Gogoi, S.A. Bobde
Citation- 2014 2 SCC 1
Court- Supreme Court
Date of Judgment- 12/11/2013
Introduction-
Anywhere at any place if a crime is committed
according to a layman who do not have any idea or knowledge about the criminal
jurisprudence and the justice system generally, they approach to the nearby
police station to lodge F.I.R. An F.I.R is a first information report lodged by
the police in charge of the police station under section 154 of CrPc.
Any person can give information to the police related
to the commission of cognisable offence. The police officer will ascertain
whether the offence is cognisable or non-cognisable in nature before
registration. According to CrPc, the police officer cannot lodge an F.I.R for
non-cognisable offences neither can start any investigation regarding the same
till the court or the magistrate directs. The police officer may conduct a
preliminary verification for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether a
cognisable offence has been committed or not.
Brief Fact of the case-
A minor girl (the petitioner) Lalitha Kumari was
kidnapped by local goons. Her father, Mr. Bhola Kamat went to the police
station for lodging FIR but the police refused. As per the direction, he
approached to the Superintendent of Police for registration of FIR.But, even after
that investigation was not started and the police did not take any measures for
the same.
Hence, a writ petition has been filed under article 32
of Indian Constitution through her father in the supreme court.
Issues of the case-
The main issue was whether a police officer is
bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon receiving any
information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 of
the CrPC or the police officer has the power to conduct a “preliminary inquiry”
in order to test the veracity of such information before registering the same.
Provisions/ Laws involved-
Section 154- Information in cognizable
cases
(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.
(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-
section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
(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.
Section 2(c)- Cognizable offence
"Cognizable
offence" means an offence for which, and" cognizable case" means
a case in which, a police officer may, inaccordance with the First Schedule or
under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant;
Petitioner’s Argument-
1. The use of word ‘shall’ in section 154(1)
indicates that there is no discretionary power left to the police officer to
register FIR. In reference to this, the
petitioner’s argument had referred to the cases that is B. Premchand vs Mohan
koika, M/s HiralalRatanlal v state of U.P, and Govind Lal Patel vs Agricultural
Procedure Market Committee, Godhra and Ors.
2. The petitioner also contended that the word
‘information’ mentioned under section 154(1) without prefixing the words
‘reasonable’ or ‘credible’ which means that the authenticity or credibility of
the information is not necessary while registering the event.
3. Also, the counsel stated that if the information
is received by the officer in charge of the police station, he must record the
FIR under section 154 of the criminal procedure of the code, the reliance was
put on the judgements of the apex court like state of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal,
Ramesh Kumari vs State of NCT and Prakash Singh Badal v State of Punjab.
Respondent’s Argument-
1. The respondent’s counsel argued that the registration
of FIR is mandatory u/s 154 of the CrPc, if the information discloses a
cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is allowed in such situations.
2. But in other cases, the contention came that a
preliminary inquiry should be conducted before the registration of FIR. This
was based upon the following ingredients-
-
Section
154(1) must be read with article 14, 19 and 21 which provides that no person
being a citizen of a country shall be subjected to any kind of hateful
prosecution and an innocent shall not be implicated in a criminal case.
-
No single
provision of a statute can be read and interpreted in isolation, has to be read
with other provisions that is section 41, 57, 156, 157, 167, 190, 200 and 2002
of this code.
-
Also,
section 154(3) enables the complainant may approach to the Superintendent of
Police if the police officer in charge refuses to register FIR. It clearly
states that the police officer is not bound to register it if he has doubts on
the veracity of the case.
Judgement of the court-
The hon’ble apex court, in view of the same
stated few guidelines-
1. Section
154 requires the filing of a FIR if information reveals the commission of a
cognizable offence and no preliminary investigation is to be conducted.
2. If
the information received does not reveal a cognizable offence but indicates the
need for an investigation, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to
determine whether or not a cognizable offence was committed.
3. If
a unanimous complaint is lodged, it must first be placed on the preliminary
investigation list; if there is well-found substance regarding the commission
of a cognizable offence, a FIR must be registered.
4. If
there is a possibility that a particular complaint is false, a preliminary
investigation will be conducted.
5. If
the preliminary investigation reveals the commission of a cognizable offence,
the FIR must be filed. If the preliminary investigation results in the
complaint being closed, a copy of the entry detailing the reason for the
closure must be provided to the first informant within a week.
6. If
a cognizable offence is disclosed, the police officer cannot avoid his duty to
register the offence. Officers who commit mistakes must be punished.
7. The
purpose of the preliminary investigation is not to verify the veracity or
otherwise of the information received, but rather to determine whether the
information received reveals the commission of a cognizable offence or not.
8. The
type and location of preliminary investigations will be determined by the facts
and circumstances of each case. Preliminary investigations must be conducted in
cases such as matrimonial or family disputes, commercial offences, medical
negligence, corruption cases, and cases where there is an unusual delay or
laches in reporting the matter.
9. A
preliminary investigation must not last more than seven days while ensuring and
protecting the rights of the accused and complainant. In the event of another
delay, the reason for the delay must be recorded in the General Diary.
10. Because
the general diary, station diary, or daily diary is the record of all
information received in a police station, all information relating to
cognizable offences, whether resulting in the registration of a FIR or leading
to an inquiry, must be meticulously noted in such diary. If a preliminary
investigation is conducted, the reason for doing so must be documented.
Judgement
Analysis-
Except in the context
of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the offences under investigation by the
CBI, the principle of a preliminary investigation is foreign to Indian criminal
law. The officer in charge of a police station is required to record all
information, whether oral or written, relating to the commission of a
cognizable offence. Non-registration of cases is a serious complaint against
the police. The Committee on Criminal Justice System Reforms, led by Dr.
Justice V. S. Malimath, noticed the same thing.
The Committee
observed:- "According to the Section 154 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the office incharge of a police station is mandated to register
every information oral or written relating to the commission of a cognizable
offense. Non-registration of cases is a serious complaint against the
police."
Furtherly, Supreme
Court of India has ruled that the words 'information' and 'shall' do not have
to be interpreted in any other way than the literal interpretation of the text
of the Statute. The Court refused other ways of interpretation, such as the
purposive interpretation of statutes, as these can only create absurd and
irrational interpretations that are incompatible with the relevant statute. In
the whole scheme of the Code, 'Information' within the Provision means any
information disclosing the cognizable offense and 'will' is anything mandatory.
Textualism allows the general public to be mindful
of their rights, responsibilities, and obligations, and to restrict the extent
of judicial action. Through emphasizing the language of the legislature above
and beyond judicial interpretation, legislative supremacy is valued and
judicial vigilance is practiced. The Court is aware that relying entirely on
some form of interpretation yields questionable outcomes. Primary rules of
interpretation and presumptions are used for assistance.
Conclusion
In this regard, the information given to the police
must reveal the commission of a cognizable offence in the context of various
counter-cases involving enlistment or non-enrolment. In such a case, a formal
investigation report (FIR) must be filed. If no cognizable offence is found in
the data provided, the FIR does not have to be filed right away, and the police
may conduct a preliminary check or request for the sole purpose of determining
whether a cognizable offence has been filed.However, if the information
provided clearly indicates the commission of a cognizable offence, the only
option is to file a FIR right away. Different considerations are not applicable
during the FIR enrolment phase, for example, regardless of whether the data is
incorrectly given, authentic, or tenable, and so on.
0 Comments