Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J.
Shri Kamal Pant & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Karnataka & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 21264 of 2021 (Gm-Res)
Decided On : 31-01-2022
PUBLIC SERVANT - Criminal Law - Section 166A of IPC - Summary of Section 166A of IPC and Court's Interpretation
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a petition against the initiation of action under Section 166A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against police officers for not registering an FIR based on a complaint of sexual harassment. The petitioners argued that the complaint did not disclose a cognizable offence and that they had followed due process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint did not clearly indicate a cognizable offence and that the police officers had taken appropriate action by conducting a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR. The court held that prosecuting the petitioners under Section 166A of IPC would amount to an abuse of the court process.
Issues: The main issue was whether the police officers' actions constituted an offence under Section 166A of IPC for failing to register an FIR based on a complaint of sexual harassment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 166A of IPC and emphasized that the failure to register an FIR must be in clear violation of the law, and in this case, the complaint did not unambiguously indicate a cognizable offence. The court also considered the actions taken by the police officers in conducting a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the proceedings before the Magistrate and the investigation ordered under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C were quashed.
ORDER
1. When this writ petition was disposed of on 14.12.2021, the second respondent, namely, Adarsha R Iyer, was not heard as he did not appear before the Court. On 15.12.2021, he filed a memo for being spoken to and this memo was first posted before the Court on 18.01.2022. At the request of the second respondent, the case was taken up on 24.01.2022. On that day, he gave the reasons for his inability to appear on 14.12.2021 and requested for giving him a hearing. To meet the ends of justice, his memo was allowed and he was permitted to argue. Since re-hearing was granted, the order dated 14.12.2021 was recalled.
2. I have heard Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for the first respondent-State and Sri Adarsh R Iyer, the second respondent who appeared in-person.
3. The submission of Sri P.Prasanna Kumar is that, the second respondent has initiated action against the petitioners under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, in PCR No.6373/2021 alleging that the petitioners have committed an offence under Section 166A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The main allegation in the complaint is that the third petitioner who is the Inspector of Police, Cubbon Park Police Station failed to register an FIR on the basis of the information given by one Dinesh Ka Ma ha ll i with regard to sexual harassment on a girl by the Ex-minister of the Government of Karnataka. Receiving the complaint, the Magistrate ordered for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. In this regard Sri P.Prasanna Kumar further submitted that the report made by Dinesh Kallahalli actually did not disclose commission of a cognizable offence and in fact he himself requested the police Inspector to ascertain the truth. Dinesh Ka Ma ha Mi made the report on 02.03.2021. The Inspector issued a notice to Dinesh Kallahalli for inquiry and that on 05.03.2021, Dinesh Kallahalli appeared and told the inspector that the person who had given him CD containing the intimate moments of the Minister with the girl did not contact him again. On 07.03.2021, Dinesh Kallahalli addressed a letter to the Police Inspector stating that he would withdraw the complaint. In the meantime as the Minister had also given a report to the police against unknown person, the Police Commissioner constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) on 11.03.2021. The Inspector of Cubbon Park Police Station is also member of SIT. Then on 26.03.2021, at the instance of victim girl, FIR was registered in Crime No.30/2021. Thereafter a woman by name Smt. Geetha Mishra instituted Writ Petition No.6586/2021 with regard to the same incident and in the said writ petition, the Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 27.07.2021 to the effect that the investigation in Crime No.21/2021 and30/2021 should continue, but the final report should not be filed. Now actually the final report is ready, but not filed because of the direction given by the Division Bench of this Court.
4. Referring to these consecutive events, Sri P.Prasanna Kumar submits that since Dinesh Kallahalli's report did not disclose commission of a cognizable offence, FIR was not registered. Later-on he himself withdrew his complaint. Soon after the victim girl made a report, FIR was registered. Therefore it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed an offence punishable under Section 166A of IPC. Probably the second respondent did not know all these developments and he rushed to the Court of Magistrate with a complaint being unaware of the factual aspects. The petitioners never showed dereliction in the duty and if prosecution is permitted, it will demoralize the police officers for no fault of them. He submitted that the second respondent is not concerned with the case and he is totally a third person. Hence he argued for quashing of the proceedings in the private complaint.
5. Respondent No.2 submits that the report made by Diensh Kallahalli discloses commission of cognizable offence. The moment
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to register an FIR under Section 166A of IPC must be a clear violation of the law, and the court must consider the circumstance....
The FIR is the foundation for investigation, and compliance with Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. can be fulfilled by a complaint to the Commissioner of Police.
The police are mandated to register an FIR when information discloses a cognizable offense, without questioning the reliability of the information at that stage.
The court upheld lower courts' discretion in denying FIR registration, ruling that the petitioner had sufficient evidence and means to substantiate his claims without police assistance.
The Station House Officer is obligated to register an FIR upon receiving information about a cognizable offence, and the learned Magistrate must independently assess the complaint before directing po....
The police are mandated to register an FIR upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence, irrespective of the credibility of the information.
The registration of FIR under Section 188 IPC without a written complaint from the concerned public servant is impermissible and renders the proceedings void ab initio.
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
