SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Raj) 2097

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Farjand Ali, J.
Suresh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 7326 of 2023
Decided On : 23-11-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Pradeep Shah
For the Respondent: Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor

The Magistrate must register an FIR when a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, without examining the truthfulness of the allegations at that stage.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 156(3) - Judicial Magistrate's duty to send FIR - The learned Special Judge declined to send the matter for FIR registration despite cognizable offence disclosure in the complaint - The court emphasized that a mere perusal revealing a cognizable offence mandates FIR registration without delving into allegations' truthfulness. (Paras 2, 3, 4)

(B) Supreme Court Precedents - Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh - The court reiterated that the Magistrate must send complaints disclosing cognizable offences to police for investigation, not initiate an inquiry. (Paras 3, 4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the Magistrate's order refusing to register an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., despite clear allegations of a cognizable offence in the complaint. The Magistrate opted for an inquiry instead of FIR registration.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the Magistrate acted outside legal bounds by not sending the complaint for FIR registration, which was necessary given the allegations.

Issues: The main issues included the obligation of the Magistrate to register an FIR when a cognizable offence is disclosed and adherence to Supreme Court mandates.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the presence of a cognizable offence in the complaint necessitates FIR registration, reaffirming the principle established in Lalita Kumari's case.

Result: The petition was allowed, and the prior order was quashed.

JUDGMENT :

Farjand Ali, J.

By way of filing the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, challenge has been made to the order dated 7.11.2023, whereby the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Churu declined to sent the matter for registration of the FIR under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to the Police Station and the complaint was kept for holding enquiry as envisaged under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the impugned order as well as the copy of complaint-cum-report wherein prayer for sending the matter for registration of the FIR was made.

3. A cursory look over the complaint indicated disclosure of commission of a cognizable offence. The niceties, truthfulness and faisity of the allegations are not required to be examined at this stage rather as per the settled legal preposition if the perusal of the complaint disclosing commission of a cognizable offence then, certainly it is imperative upon the Magistrate concerned to send the matter under Section 156(3) of this Cr.P.C. for registration of the FIR to the Police Station concerned. Examination of truth or genuineness is the subject of investigation, of Course, a formal application of mind is required but at the same time the veracity is not required to be examined. The application of mind to the extent of observing that whether there are allegations or not for the offences which are cognizable is sufficient. This Court in the case of Mathura Devi v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5195/2021 decided on 6.1.2022) has dealt with the identical issues. The relevant part of the said order is felt apt to reproduce here, which is as under:-

    "It is revealing that the petitioner Mathura Devi had preferred a complaint before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dudu, District Jaipur, alleging therein that on 29.7.2021, the accused person barged into her house and outraged her modesty, she was manhandled and subjected to abusive language. The allegations of skirmishing, threatening and beating through kicks were also leveled therein. A bare perusal of the report discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the prayer was made by the complainant to sent the matter for registration of the FIR. It is also mentioned in the complaint that she had sent report of the incident to the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur (Rural) but no beed has been paid by him.

    Learned Counsel submits that instead of sending the matter to the police for registering the FIR and conducting investigation, the learned Magistrate opted to record the statement of the complainant, which was not warranted by the law as the bare perusal of the report, itself disclosed commission of a cognizable offence.

    Learned Counsel drew attention of this Court towards the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., wherein, she has categorically alleged regarding commission of a cognizable offence. He submits that compact disk was also produced before the Court as a piece of evidence.

    However, the learned Magistrate, instead of sending it to the Police under Section 156 of Cr.P.C. initiated an enquiry under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., which is a blatant disregard of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 4 SCC 1, as well as of the mandate of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the report sent to the Superintendent of Police, the complaint made to the Judicial Magistrate, the allegations made therein supported with affidavit, the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and the order dated 7.8.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate.

    It is well settled that the reliability, truthfulness of the genuineness of the allegations made in the report/complaint is a task to be undertaken during t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top