Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Del) 1528

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Neelu Shrivastava - Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 481 of 2020
Decided On : 30-11-2021

Advocates appeared:
R.N. Dubey, Advocate, Vinay Sharma, Advocate, Richa Kapoor, Advocate, Shivani Sharma, Advocate, Surabhi Katyal, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of Section 154 CrPC, the concept of 'Zero FIR', and the obligation of the police to register a regular FIR on the disclosure of a cognizable offence.

Headnote:
Zero FIR - Jurisdiction of Police Station - Section 154 CrPC, Section 178(d) CrPC, Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 384, Kirti Vashisht v. State & Ors., CRL.M.C.5933/2019, Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., (1999) 8 SCC 728 - The court discussed the obligation of the police to register an FIR under Section 154 CrPC and the concept of 'Zero FIR'. It emphasized that the place of crime and jurisdiction of the police station becomes irrelevant when a cognizable offence is disclosed, and the police station is obligated to instantly transfer the pertinent documents over to the police station vested with the jurisdiction which numbers the FIR and begins the investigation. The court also highlighted the mandatory nature of Section 154 CrPC and the Supreme Court's observation that the concerned police officer cannot refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed an FIR disclosing allegations of sexual assault, fraud, forgery, conspiracy, and attempted murder against the accused. Despite disclosing an incident within the jurisdiction of Police Station GTB Enclave, a 'Zero FIR' was registered and the investigation was transferred to Police Station Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Police Station GTB Enclave was obligated to register a regular FIR and not a 'Zero FIR' for the incident that occurred within its jurisdiction. It criticized the failure of the police to fulfill their obligation and emphasized the importance of timely registration of FIR to conduct effective investigations and preserve evidence.
Issues: The issues included the obligation of the police to register an FIR under Section 154 CrPC, the concept of 'Zero FIR', and the transfer of investigation from one police station to another.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mere disclosure of an incident within the jurisdiction of a police station is sufficient for the registration of a regular FIR, and failure to do so can lead to the destruction of important evidence. It also emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 154 CrPC and the obligation of the police to register a case on the disclosure of a cognizable offence.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to register a regular FIR instead of a 'Zero FIR' and conduct the investigation. It also directed the hand-over of documents related to the FIR registered at Police Station Indirapuram to the concerned authorities for investigation.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayers:-

"(i) Issue a writ mandamus of direction of the order of like nature, thereby directing the respondents no. 2 & 3 to restore the investigation of the case FIR No.0003/2019 P.S. GTB Enclave by passing the appropriate action for illegal transfer of the above said case to the respondents no. 4& 5 by the respondent no.2.

(ii) Issue a writ mandamus of direction of the order of like nature, thereby calling the explanation from the Respondents no. 2 & 3 for non registration of the F.I.R. under sections 313/328/307/201/342/330/420/468/323/120B IPC apart from the Sections in which the FIR has been registered.

(iii) direct the SHO P.S. GTB Enclave to continue the investigation of the above said case within the jurisdiction of the above said case within the jurisdiction of P.S. GTB Enclave, to restore the investigation with Respondent No.3, registering the FIR with P.S. GTB Enclave, withdrawing the FIR from P.S. Indrapuram, Ghaziabad under the appropriate provisions to ensure the prompt, fair and effective investigation to ensure the fair and effective trial.

(iv) Issue direction to the Respondent NO. 2 to 5 ensure the security the security to the life of the Petitioner and her mother and sister from the accused person in appropriate manner.

(v) Pass any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case."

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the instant writ petition are as follows:

i. It is stated that on 23.07.2019, the Petitioner filed an FIR disclosing an allegation of sexual assault against her that had taken place from 2008 to 2019 at various places, including at GTB Enclave, New Delhi.

ii. It is stated that the Petitioner herein had registered a complaint regarding crime of fraud, forgery and conspiracy towards forging marriage certificates, committing rape, getting an abortion done by the accused who forced the Petitioner to ingest poisonous products, and attempted murder.

iii. It is stated that in 2008, the petitioner was living in Lajpat Nagar, Ghaziabad, along with her parents when one of the accused Ajay Shrivastava, who was her aunt"s son, forcefully initiated physical relationship with her. It is stated that initially on account of their familiar relationship, the Petitioner did not take any legal action against him. However, despite knowing that the Petitioner was his sister, Ajay tortured her physically, mentally and ruined her entire career. It is stated that when Ajay"s mother went to live at the Petitioner"s Kanpur residential address, Ajay raped the petitioner for the first time.

iv. It is stated that when the Petitioner insisted on registering a police complaint against Ajay and his family, then Ajay, and co-accused Anil (brother of Ajay), with the help of their sister, Seema (also a co-accused) poured kerosene on the Petitioner and set her on fire. However, when they realised that the same could lead to the Petitioner"s death, they put off the fire. However, burn marks as a result of this incident are still present on the internal and external organs of the Petitioner"s body. It is stated that the Petitioner was also threatened by Anil, who informed her that he had political connections and if she tried to register a police complaint, they would not let her remain alive.

v. It is stated that Anil as well as the wife of Ajay (Garima) threatened the Petitioner and told her that she would have to remain as mistress/wife of Ajay forever and would have to satisfy his lust.

vi. It is stated that as a result of the mental torture that was inflicted on the Petitioner, she was unable to register a complaint to the police immediately. It is stated that when the Petitioner was living alone in Indrapuram, Ghaziabad, U.P. in 2011, Ajay found her address and started telling people that she was his wife. Further, he also consistently ra