Reg of FIR SC HC

(A) LAW WITH RESPECT TO COMPULSORY REGISTRATION OF FIR DISCLOSING COMMISSION OF COGNIZABLE OFFENCE

(I) “In BOMBAY(Criminal) 08/10/2008 (J-R) APPW/271/2007, a full bench judgment of the Bombay High Court had laid down that cops should register the FIR against the accused person within two days of being informed of commission of any cognizable offence.” The comprehensive judgment, among other things, says that, the law inescapably requires the police officer to register the information received by him in relation to commission of a cognizable offence. Under the scheme of the CrPC, no choice is vested in the police officer between recording or not recording the information received. This Judgment of Bombay High Court or Judgments of any High Court can be used in any Court in India.

(II) In Writ Petition (CRL) no 68 of 2008 (Latika Kumar vs. Govt of UP & Others). On 14th July 2008 , Justice BN Agarwal and Justice GS Singhvi " directed, “We feel that it is high time to give directions to Governments of all the States and Union Territories besides their Director Generals of Police/Commissioners of Police as the case may be to the effect that if steps are not taken for registration of F.I.Rs immediately and copies thereof are not made over to the complainants, they may move the concerned Magistrates by filing complaint petitions to give direction to the police to register case immediately upon receipt/production of copy of the orders and make over copy of the F.I.Rs to the complainants, within twenty four hours of receipt/production of copy of such orders. It may further give direction to take immediate steps for apprehending the accused persons and recovery of kidnapped/abducted persons and properties which were subject matter of theft or dacoity. In case F.I.Rs are not registered within the aforementioned time, and/or aforementioned steps are not taken by the police, the concerned Magistrate would be justified in initiating contempt proceeding against such delinquent officers and punish them for violation of its orders if no sufficient cause is shown and awarding stringent punishment like sentence of imprisonment against them inasmuch as the Disciplinary Authority would be quite justified in initiating departmental proceeding and suspending them in contemplation of the same.”

(III) The officer concerned is duty bound to register the case on the basis of information disclosing cognizable offence. Ramesh Kumari versus State (NCT of Delhi) (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 678 at pg 682.

(IV) What is of significance is that the information given must disclose the commission of an cognizable offence and the information so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of an cognizable offence, and that the Police officer must be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been committed. If he has reasons to suspect, on the basis of info received, that a cognizable offence may have been committed, he is bound to record the information and conduct an investigation. CBI versus Tapan Kumar Singh (2003) 6 SCC 175 at page 183-184.

(V) In section 154(1) the word information does not qualify with the word reasonable or credible. State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Cr) 426. In this case the HC had quashed the FIR. The SC set aside the HC order and held as follows – At the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence, the Police officer concerned cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. Reasonableness or credibility of the said information in not a condition precedent for registration of a case. Also – Gurmito versus State of Punjab 1996 CrLJ 1254 at page 1258 (P & H); Ranbir Yadav versus State of Bihar 1995 CrLJ 2665 at page 2678 (SC).

(VI) Police officer has no option but to register the case if the information discloses the commission of an cognizable offence. Lallan Choudhary versus State of Bihar (2007) 1 SCC (Cr) at page 686.

(VII) Even when the information is against the Police officials, including the Sub-inspector’s own higher officials, it is the duty of the officer in charge of the police station to register the case. A Nallasivan versus State of Tamilnadu 1995 CrLJ 2754 at page 2760 (Mad)

(VIII) The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in a very recent Ruling [(2014) 2 SCC 1], gave the following directions in respect of Registration / Non Registration of FIR by Police.

Para 111: In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

(B) LAW WITH RESPECT TO PLACE OF REGISTRATION OF FIR

If it is an cognizable offence, the officer in charge of the police station to whom information about the offence is given, has a statutory duty to reduce it to writing and get the signature of the informant. The Officer in charge has no escape from doing so whether or not such offence was committed within the limits of that police station. The officer in charge can transmit the FIR to the police station having such territorial jurisdiction. Navinchandra N Majithia versus State of Meghalaya 2000 SCC (Cri) 1510 at page 1513-14.

(C) LAW WITH RESPECT TO LANGUAGE OF FIR

Article 350 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA – Every person shall be entitled to submit a representation for the redress of any grievance to any officer or authority of the Union or a State in any of the languages used in the Union or in the State, as the case may be.

(D) LAW WITH RESPECT TO FORM OF RECORDING COMPLAINT BY CITIZEN / PERSON

(I) A telephonic message can also be a FIR provided it discloses the particulars required by section 154 of CrPC about the commission of a cognizable offence. S G Gundegowda versus State 1996 CrLJ 852 at page 861 (Kant)

(II) FIR in the form of Letter Complaint – T T Anthony versus State of Kerala, AIR 2001 SC 2637 – if a detailed complaint is made to the Police in writing, narrating facts constituting cognizable offence, such a letter should be taken by Police as the FIR.

(E) CONSEQUENCES THAT MAY ENSUE FOR NOT REGISTERING FIR DISCLOSING COGNIZABLE OFFENCE

(I) If Police do not register FIR then he may commits offence under section 217 or if he incorrectly frame FIR/NC, it is an offence u/s 218 of IPC.

Section 217 of Indian Penal Code declares that when a Public Servant, in the discharge of his official duty, acting contrary to law, knowingly conduct himself in such a manner, thereby knowing that his act will-- (a) save a person from any legal punishment or to secure lesser punishment for that person to which he is liable for; (b) save a property from forfeiture or charge to which that property is liable to, commits offence under this section.

Section 218 of Indian Penal Code declares that when a Public Servant, in the discharge of his official duty, who has been charged with the duty of preparation of any Record or any Writing, knowingly prepares incorrectly such record or writing, with the knowledge that by preparing such incorrect Record or Writing he will cause (a) loss or injury to Public or to any person (b) save a person from any legal punishment or to secure lesser punishment for that person to which he is liable for; (c) save a property from forfeiture or charge to which that property is liable to, commits offence under this section.

(II) The modern legal system provides that as soon as an offence is committed, the Criminal Law is set into motion, irrespective of the wishes of the injured party. Police Willful disregard in discharge of his duties may constitutes a Criminal Contempt Of Court: The process of administration of justice begins with the committing of an offence by a person, well before any FIR is filed OR case is registered in the court.

(III) Contempt proceedings may be initiated if Police refuses to register FIR. In the case of Lalitha Kumari versus Govt of UP (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 17 at page 19- that if steps are not taken for registration of FIR immediately and copies thereof are not made available to the complainants, they may move the magistrate concerned by filing complaint petition to give direction to the police to register the case immediately, failing which the Magistrate concerned may initiate contempt proceedings against the delinquent police officer.

Section 166A(c) now, expressly makes a punishable offence if the Public servant concerned fails to record any information given to him under sub-section (1) of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in relation to cognizable offence punishable under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354B, section 370, section 370A, section 376, section 376A, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code.

Sandeep Jalan

Advocate

Law Referencer: https://www.vakeelkanumber.com/