Back
2014 Supreme(Guj) 644
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R.M.CHHAYA, J.
LIYAKATKHAN BISMILLAHKHAN PATHAN - Applicant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 1962 of 2014
Decided On : 08/07/2014
Advocate Appeared:
MR HASHIM QURESHI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS HANSA PUNANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
The mandatory nature of FIR registration under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P., 2014(2) SCC 1.
Headnote:
FIR Registration - Criminal Procedure - The court directed the police to register an FIR based on the petitioner's application, citing the mandatory nature of FIR registration under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P., 2014(2) SCC 1.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application before the police authorities requesting the registration of an FIR, but no actions were taken by the authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the police to decide the application expeditiously and in accordance with law, without being influenced by the recent judgment passed by the Apex Court.
Issues: The issue involved in the present petition was the registration of the FIR against the culprits pursuant to the petitioner's application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the recent judgment passed by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2014, which emphasized the mandatory nature of FIR registration under Section 154 of the Code and provided guidelines for conducting preliminary inquiries.
Final Decision: The present petition was disposed of, and the police were directed to decide the application for FIR registration as expeditiously as possible, without being influenced by the recent judgment.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. Ms.Hansa Punani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1 – State.
3. Considering the issue involved in the present petition and with consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
4. By way of this petition under Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to register the FIR against the culprits pursuant to the application dated 01.04.2014 (at Annexure:C) filed by the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the detailed application dated 01.04.2014 is filed by the petitioner before the police authorities, no actions are being taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, relied upon the recent judgment passed by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2014, wherein the Apex Court has referred the Constitutional Bench judgment in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P., 2014(2) SCC 1, wherein it has been observed thus:“
(i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
(ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
(iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
(iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
(v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
(vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
(vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
(viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.”
6. Considering the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, respondent No.2-P.S.I, Balasinor Police Station, Dist: Mahisagar, before whom the application dated 01.04.2014 is filed, is hereby directed to decide the said application as expeditiously as possible on its own merits and in accordanc
