Back
2025 Supreme(Pat) 370
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.
Nilam Devi @ Lilam Devi W/o Baiju Shah - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.212 of 2024
Decided on : 24-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Rikesh Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Madhaw Pd. Yadav, Mr. Rajesh Kr. Sinha
The police are obligated to register F.I.R.s for cognizable offences, especially under the POCSO Act, and failure to do so violates fundamental rights.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 154 and Section 156(3) - Writ petition for mandamus directing police to register F.I.R. for offences under POCSO Act - No F.I.R. registered despite allegations of sexual assault against a minor, leading to gross violation of law by police. (Paras 3, 8, 11)
(B) Fundamental Rights - Police's duty to register cognizable offences - Failure by police to act upon a complaint constitutes a blatant violation of fundamental rights and an aberration of justice, necessitating judicial intervention. (Paras 8, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a minor, alleged sexual assault and publication of objectionable photos by her cousin, with complaints ignored by police.
Findings of Court:
Writ of mandamus issued to register F.I.R. and Departmental action recommended against police officials for negligence.
Issues: Whether the police's failure to register an F.I.R. constitutes a violation of legal provisions and rights of the minor victim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that police are bound to register offences as per Section 154 of Cr.P.C., and the negligence displayed by higher authorities cannot be justified or overlooked.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint about sexual assault not acted upon. (Para 1) |
| 2. writ petition for mandamus on police. (Para 2) |
| 3. state’s argument regarding alternative remedies. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's reasoning on importance of fir registration. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. clarification of police's inaction. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. court's directives for fir registration and compensation. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. disposition of the writ petition. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.
A minor girl, aged about 13 years lodged a complaint before the S.H.O. Rupaspur Police Station on 22.12.2023 alleging, inter-alia, that his cousin brother had committed the offence of sexual assault and also took some objectionable photographs of the said minor and made it viral in social media but police did not lodge any F.I.R. on the basis of the said complaint. Subsequently, on 27.12.2023 the victim made similar complaint to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Patna with copy to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna under registered speed post, even than no F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of the said complaint.
2. Finding no other alternative the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the police authority to register the F.I.R. against the accused persons.3. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition and the counter affidavit, this
Court finds that the official respondents have grossly violated the provision under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. even in connection with an incident which reflects prima-facie an offence under the POCSO Act, since cognizable and non-cognizable.
4. In the counter affidavit as usual the State-Respondents took a plea that the petitioner had alternative remedy under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., which she failed to adopt and take, and at this stage no relief can be granted to the petitioner following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu’s case.
5. This Court has considered the decisions of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Kunga Nimalepcha & Ors. Vs. State of Sikkim & Ors. and other decisions on the line.
6. This Court of-course cannot take a different view from the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
7. At the same time, time has come to revisit the issue as to whether the police authority can take the advantage of the supervision of Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., even after their fault in registering F.I.R. inspite of disclosure of cognizable and non-bailable offence. If the Higher Courts follow the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a closed and confined mind, duty of the police officer in the matter of registration of F.I.R. will be reduced to obscurity.
8. In the instant case, a minor girl herself alleged that his cousin brother (ekSlsjk HkkbZ) used to come to her house and committed illicit act upon her. He also took some obscene photographs of the minor girl and circulated in social media even than, if the Constitutional Court thinks that duty of the police officer can be bypassed in view of the provision contained in Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., such decision in my considered view would be aberration of justice, equity and blatant violation of fundamental rights.
9. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that though the petitioner filed complaint but the said compliant was misplaced in the police station.
10. Indisputably, the said complaint was not misplaced from the office of the Additional Superintendent of Police, and Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna but no action has been taken by the Higher Echelons of the Police Administration. It is not the fault of the Police Department but it is a fault of Home Department, Government of Bihar. It is also not disputed that the official respondents received the copy of the writ petition on 08.01.2024, there is no ground stated as to why F.I.R. was not lodged on the basis of the co
