Back
Supreme Court of India
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., B.S. CHAUHAN, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, RANJAN GOGOI & S.A. BOBDE, JJ.
Lalita Kumari – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of U.P. & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68 of 2008 with S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5986 of 2006 S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5200 of 2009 Criminal Appeal No. 1410 of 2011 Criminal Appeal No. 1267 of 2007 & Contempt Petition (C) No. D26722 of 2008 In Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68 of 2008
Decided On : 12-11-2013
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 154-Police Act, 1861-Section 44-FIR-Registration of-If at all, there is any inconsistency in provisions of Section 154 of Code and Section 44 of Police Act, 1861, with regard to fact as to whether FIR is to be registered in FIR book or in General Diary, provisions of Section 154 of Code will prevail and provisions of Section 44 of Police Act, 1861 (or similar provisions of respective corresponding Police Act or Rules in other respective States) shall be void to extent of repugnancy-Registration of FIR is mandatory and also that it is to be recorded in FIR Book by giving a unique annual number to each FIR to enable strict tracking of each and every registered FIR by superior police officers as well as by competent court to which copies of each FIR are required to be sent. (Paras 60 , 61 and 63)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 154-FIR-Registration of-While registration of FIR is mandatory, arrest of accused immediately on registration of FIR is not at all mandatory-Registration of FIR and arrest of accused person are two entirely different concepts under law and there are several safeguards available against arrest-Accused person also has right to apply for anticipatory bail under provisions of Section 438 of Code if conditions mentioned therein are satisfied-In appropriate cases, he can avoid arrest under that provision by obtaining an order from Court-Arrest of a person and registration of FIR are not directly and/or irreversibly linked and they are entirely different concepts operating under entirely different parameters-If a police officer misuses his power of arrest, he can be tried and punished under Section 166 of IPC. (Paras 98, 100 and 101)
(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 154-FIR-Registration of-Preliminary enquiry-Scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify veracity or otherwise of information received but only to ascertain whether information reveals any cognizable offence-As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on facts and circumstances of each case-While ensuring and protecting rights of accused and complainant, preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed seven days-Fact of such delay and causes of it must be reflected in General Diary entry. (Para 111)
(E) Interpretation of Statute-Golden Rule of Construction-If the provision is unambiguous and legislative intent is clear, court need not call into it any other rules of construction-Golden rule of interpretation can be given a go-by only in cases where language of the section is ambiguous and/or leads to an absurdity. (Paras 44 and 45)
Result-Reference disposed of. Various directions issued.
The legal document provides a comprehensive analysis of the statutory obligation of police officers under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the registration of FIRs upon receiving information about cognizable offences. The core ratio established is that the registration of an FIR is a mandatory duty when information discloses a cognizable offence, and this obligation is absolute and cannot be circumvented by preliminary inquiries or verification processes (!) (!) . The language of Section 154(1), notably the use of the word "shall," signifies a clear legislative intent that police must record such information without discretion, emphasizing the mandatory nature of FIR registration in these circumstances (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the law clarifies that the purpose of FIR registration is to set the criminal process into motion and ensure transparency and accountability in police procedures. It is not contingent upon the credibility, reasonableness, or verification of the information at the time of registration; these are issues to be examined during subsequent investigation (!) (!) (!) . The registration is to be recorded in a dedicated FIR book with a unique number for each FIR, facilitating strict tracking and oversight (!) (!) .
The document also distinguishes FIR registration from preliminary inquiries or investigations, which are separate procedural steps that can be undertaken after registration if deemed necessary, but do not negate the mandatory obligation to register the FIR initially (!) (!) (!) . It emphasizes that police discretion to conduct preliminary inquiries before FIR registration is limited and only permissible in specific circumstances where the information does not clearly disclose a cognizable offence (!) (!) .
Additionally, the document underscores that the police's failure to register an FIR when the information discloses a cognizable offence constitutes a violation of statutory duty and can undermine the rule of law and victims' rights (!) (!) (!) . Safeguards such as the right to approach higher authorities or judicial remedies are available if FIRs are unjustly withheld (!) .
In sum, the ratio derived from the document firmly establishes that the registration of an FIR upon receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence is a mandatory statutory duty, and any deviation from this obligation without lawful exception is unlawful. Preliminary inquiries are permissible only as a means to verify whether the information discloses a cognizable offence, not as a substitute for mandatory registration (!) (!) (!) .
Judgment :-
P. Sathasivam, CJI.
1) The important issue which arises for consideration in the referred matter is 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) 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?”
2) The present writ petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution, has been filed by one Lalita Kumari (minor) through her father, viz., Shri Bhola Kamat for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus or direction(s) of like nature against the respondents herein for the protection of his minor daughter who has been kidnapped. The grievance in the said writ petition is that on 11.05.2008, a written report was submitted by the petitioner before the officer in-charge of the police station concerned who did not take any action on the same. Thereafter, when the Superintendent of Police was moved, an FIR was registered. According to the petitioner, even thereafter, steps were not taken either for apprehending the accused or for the recovery of the minor girl child.
3) A two-Judge Bench of this Court in, Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 7 SCC 164, after noticing the disparity in registration of FIRs by police officers on case to case basis across the country, issued notice to the Union of India, the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories and Director Generals of Police/Commissioners of Police to the effect that if steps are not taken for registration of FIRs immediately and the copies thereof are not handed over to the complainants, they may move the Magistrates concerned by filing complaint petitions for appropriate direction(s) to the police to register the case immediately and for apprehending the accused persons, failing which, contempt proceedings must be initiated against such delinquent police officers if no sufficient cause is shown.
4) Pursuant to the above directions, when the matter was heard by the very same Bench in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 14 SCC 337, Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, projected his claim that upon receipt of information by a police officer in-charge of a police station disclosing a cognizable offence, it is imperative for him to register a case under Section 154 of the Code and placed reliance upon two-Judge Bench decisions of this Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, Ramesh Kumari vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2006) 2 SCC 677 and Parkash Singh Badal vs. State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC 1. On the other hand, Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel for the State of Maharashtra submitted that an officer in-charge of a police station is not obliged under law, upon receipt of information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, to register a case rather the discretion lies with him, in appropriate cases, to hold some sort of preliminary inquiry in relation to the veracity or otherwise of the accusations made in the report. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon two-Judge Bench decisions of this Court in P. Sirajuddin vs. State of Madras (1970) 1 SCC 595, Sevi vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1981 Supp SCC 43, Shashikant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2007) 1 SCC 630, and Rajinder Singh Katoch vs. Chandigarh Admn. (2007) 10 SCC 69. In view of the conflicting decisions of this Court on the issue, the said bench, vide order dated 16.09.2008, referred the same to a larger bench.
5) Ensuing compliance to the above direction, the matter pertaining to Lalita Kumari was heard by a Bench of three-Judges in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2012) 4 SCC 1 wherein, this Court, after hearing various counsel representing Union of India, States and Union Territories and
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
