Lalita Kumari vs Government of U. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(SC) 176

2012 (2) Supreme 321
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dalveer Bhandari, T.S. Thakur and Dipak Misra, JJ.
Lalita Kumari — Petitioner
versus
Government of U.P. & Others — Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.68 of 2008
with
Samshudheen — Appellant
versus
State, Represented by Dy. Superintendent of Police Tamil Nadu — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1410 of 2011
with
Baldev Singh Cheema — Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab & Others — Respondents
Slp (Criminal) No.5200 of 2009
with
Surjit Singh & Another — Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab & Others — Respondents
Slp (Criminal) No.5986 of 2010
and
Daljit Singh Grewal — Petitioner
versus
Ramesh Inder Singh — Respondent
Contempt Petition No. Arising out of D.26722 of 2008
in
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.68 of 2008
Decided on : 27-2-2012

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure ,1973-Section 154- Whether under Section 154 a police officer is bound to register an FIR when a cognizable offence is made out or he has some latitude of conducting some kind of preliminary enquiry before registering the FIR- Divergent judicial opinions expressed by Apex Court on the main issue whether under Section 154 Cr.P.C., a police officer is bound to register an FIR when a cognizable offence is made out or police officer has an option, discretion or latitude of conducting some kind of preliminary enquiry before registering the FIR- In view of the divergent opinions in a large number of cases decided by this Court, held extremely important to have a clear enunciation of law and adjudication by a larger Bench of this Court for the benefit of all concerned - the courts, the investigating agencies and the citizens- Consequently, Hon’ble the Chief Justice requested to refer these matters to a Constitution Bench of at least five Judges of Apex Court for an authoritative judgment (Paras 96 to 113)
       Facts of the Case :
        A. Present petition has been filed before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in the nature of habeas corpus to produce L, the minor daughter of B. On 5.5.2008, Lalita Kumari, aged about six years, went out of her house at 9 p.m. When she did not return for half an hour and B was not successful in tracing her, he filed a missing report at the police station Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P.
        B On 11.5.2008, respondent no.5 met B and informed him that his daughter has been kidnapped and kept under unlawful confinement by the respondent nos.6 to 13. The respondent-police did not take any action on his complaint. Aggrieved by the inaction of the local police, B made a representation on 3.6.2008 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. On the directions of the Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, the police station Loni, Ghaziabad registered a First Information Report dated 6.6.2008 under Sections 363/366/506/120B IPC against the private respondents.
        C. Even after registration of the FIR against the private respondents, the police did not take any action to trace L. According to the allegation of B, he was asked to pay money for initiating investigation and to arrest the accused persons. Ultimately, the petitioner filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before this Court.
        D. This Court on 14.7.2008 passed a comprehensive order expressing its grave anguish on non-registration of the FIR even in a case of cognizable offence. The Court also issued notices to all Chief Secretaries of the States and Administrators of the Union Territories. In response to the directions of the Court, various States and the Union Territories have filed comprehensive affidavits.
        E. The short, but extremely important issue which arises in this petition is whether under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, a police officer is bound to register an FIR when a cognizable offence is made out or he has some latitude of conducting some kind of preliminary enquiry before registering the FIR.
       Findings of the Court :
        A. This Court in the case of Bhajan Lal and Others , Ramesh Kumari , Parkash Singh Badal and Another v. State of Punjab and Others (2007) 1 SCC 1 and Aleque Padamsee and Others held that if a complaint alleging commission of cognizable offence is received in the Police Station, then the S.H.O. has no option but to register an F.I.R. under Section 154 Cr.P.C.
        B.On the other hand, this Court in following cases, namely, Rajinder Singh Katoch , P. Sirajuddin etc. v. State of Madras etc. 1970 (1) SCC 595, Bhagwant Kishore Joshi , Sevi and Another etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another 1981 (Suppl.) SCC 43 have taken contrary view and held that before registering the FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., it is open to the SHO to hold a preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case of commission of cognizable offence or not.
        C. It is quite evident from the ratio laid down in the aforementioned cases that different Benches of this Court have taken divergent views in different cases. In this case also after this Court’s notice, the Union of India, the States and the Union Territories have also taken or expressed divergent views about the interpretation of Section 154 Cr.P.C.
        D. In view of the divergent opinions in a large number of cases decided by this Court, held extremely important to have a clear enunciation of law and adjudication by a larger Bench of this Court for the benefit of all concerned - the courts, the investigating agencies and the citizens. Consequently, Hon’ble the Chief Justice requested to refer these matters to a Constitution Bench of at least five Judges of this Court for an authoritative judgment.

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. We propose to deal with the abovementioned writ petition, the criminal appeals and the contempt petition by this judgment. The question of law involved in these cases is identical, therefore, all these cases are being dealt with by a common judgment. In order to avoid repetition, only the facts of the writ petition of Lalita Kumari’s case are recapitulated.

2. The petition has been filed before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in the nature of habeas corpus to produce Lalita Kumari, the minor daughter of Bhola Kamat.

3. On 5.5.2008, Lalita Kumari, aged about six years, went out of her house at 9 p.m. When she did not return for half an hour and Bhola Kamat was not successful in tracing her, he filed a missing report at the police station Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P.

4. On 11.5.2008, respondent no.5 met Bhola Kamat and informed him that his daughter has been kidnapped and kept under unlawful confinement by the respondent nos.6 to 13. The respondent-police did not take any action on his complaint. Aggrieved by the inaction of the local police, Bhola Kamat made a representation on 3.6.2008 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. On the directions of the Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, the police station Loni, Ghaziabad registered a First Information Report (F.I.R.) No.484 dated 6.6.2008 under Sections 363/366/506/120B IPC against the private respondents.

5. Even after registration of the FIR against the private respondents, the police did not take any action to trace Lalita Kumari. According to the allegation of Bhola Kamat, he was asked to pay money for initiating investigation and to arrest the accused persons. Ultimately, the petitioner filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before this Court.

6. This Court on 14.7.2008 passed a comprehensive order expressing its grave anguish on non-registration of the FIR even in a case of cognizable offence. The Court also issued notices to all Chief Secretaries of the States and Administrators of the Union Territories. In response to the directions of the Court, various States and the Union Territories have filed comprehensive affidavits.

7. The short, but extremely important issue which arises in this petition is whether under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, a police officer is bound to register an FIR when a cognizable offence is made out or he has some latitude of conducting some kind of preliminary enquiry before registering the FIR.

8. Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner has tried to explain the scheme of Section 154 Cr.P.C. with the help of other provisions of the Act. According to him, whenever information regarding cognizable offence is brought to the notice of the SHO, he has no option but to register the First Information Report.

9. This Court also issued notice to the learned Attorney General for India to assist the Court in this matter of general public importance. Mr. Harish P Raval, the learned Additional Solicitor General appeared before the Court and made comprehensive submissions. He also filed written submissions which were settled by him and re-settled by the learned Attorney General for India.

10. Learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the issue which has been referred to this Court has been decided by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Aleque Padamsee and Others v. Union of India and Others1 (2007) 6 SCC 171. In this case, this Court while referring to the judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others2 (2006) 2 SCC 677 in paragraph 2 of the judgment has observed as under:-

“Whenever cognizable offence is disclosed the police officials are bound to register the same and in case it is not done, directions to register the same can be given.”

11. The State of Gujarat, the respondent in the above case, on the facts thereof, contended that on a bare reading of a complaint lodged, it a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(SC) 176

Cases Referred (45)