IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.Nagaprasanna, J.
Sri. M. Prakash S/o Late C. Muthappa Reddy - Appellant
Vs.
Sri. M. Vinayaka - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 20269 OF 2022 (GM-POLICE)
Decided On : 25-01-2023
Police Investigation - Delayed Registration of FIR - Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. - [Sections 380, 503, 410, 414, 425, 442, 451 read with 34 of the IPC] - The court discussed the delayed registration of FIR under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and emphasized the importance of promptly registering an FIR for cognizable offences as directed by the Magistrate. The judgment highlighted the duty of the police to enforce lawful orders passed by the judicial authority and the serious misconduct and dereliction of duty in failing to do so. The court ordered a departmental inquiry against the officer in-charge of the police station and emphasized the need for accountability and adherence to due process of law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner alleged that the 1st respondent forcibly broke into his residence, stole valuable articles, and filed a private complaint for cognizable offences. The Magistrate directed the police to register an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., but the crime was registered 5 months and 21 days later. The petitioner sought transfer of investigation due to the delayed registration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delayed registration of the FIR was a result of blatant callousness and negligence on the part of the police. It acknowledged the affidavit filed by the Inspector of Police, confirming the delay and misplaced documents. The court ordered a departmental inquiry against the officer in-charge of the police station and emphasized the need for accountability and adherence to due process of law.
Issues: Delayed registration of FIR, Duty of Police to Enforce Judicial Orders, Accountability of Law Enforcement Agencies
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delayed registration of an FIR for cognizable offences constituted serious misconduct and dereliction of duty by the Law Enforcement Agency. It emphasized the need for accountability and ordered a departmental inquiry against the officer in-charge of the police station.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed, and the court ordered a departmental inquiry against the officer in-charge of the police station, with a directive to conclude the inquiry within three months and file a compliance report before the court.
ORDER :
The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction for appointment of any other Police Officer higher in rank, to investigate the crime registered in Crime No.153 of 2022, which arose out of a private complaint registered in P.C.R.No.7840 of 2022, pending before the 31st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City and further seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to recover materials that have been stolen from his house.
2. Heard the petitioner in-person and Sri M.Vinod Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:-
4. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 29-04-2022 directs registration of the complaint in PCR, registered by the petitioner on reference being made of the matter to the Cottonpet Police Station for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and also directs that the matter be listed on 26-07-2022. Though the Cottonpet Police received the certified copy of the order on 04.05.2022, the crime was not registered. On 26-07-2022, when the matter was posted before the Court, a reminder was also sent to the Police Station for registration of the crime and reporting such registration. Even then the crime was not registered. The crime comes to be registered only on 18-10-2022 after about 5½ months of reference being made by the learned Magistrate directing investigation to be conducted and a report to be submitted under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. It is in that light the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court seeking transfer of investigation to the hands of any other police officer or agency owing to the fact that the Station House Officer of the Police Station showing no interest in registering the crime even.
5. The petitioner in-person would seek to contend that the private complaint that is registered was for cognizable offences. Noticing the fact that they were all cognizable offences, the learned Magistrate had directed conduct of investigation to Cottonpet Police Station. Despite a reminder on 26-07-2022, no crime is registered. He would allege that the Station House Officer is hand in glove with the 1st respondent/accused and therefore, seeks transfer of investigation to any other Police Station.
6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate would seek to defend the action of registration of crime after 5½ months on the ground that the reference though was received on 04-05-2022, the file was misplaced from the table of the Inspector and the moment the file was traced, it was immediately registered. He would submit that the Inspector of Police who had mishandled the file had been placed under suspension and the present incumbent has filed an affidavit that such instances would not be repeated.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the party-in-person and the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and the events need to be reiterated. The petitioner alleges that on 26.03.2021, the supporters of the 1st respondent forci
Mohd. Yousuf Vs. Afaq Jahan And Another reported in (2006)1 SCC 627
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 police are mandated to register an FIR when a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, and the credibility of the information is not a prerequisite for such registration.
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 main legal point established is the mandatory registration of FIR if the information discloses a cognizable offence and the need for a preliminary inquiry in certain cases. The court emphasized t....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.