Back
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
V.K.MEHROTRA,LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
KISHORI LAL BHARDWAJ - Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE - Respondent
Civil W. P. No. 555 of 1991
Decided On : 05/20/1992
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 155(1) - SECTION 157 - SECTION 44 OF POLICE ACT, 1861 - DUTY OF POLICE TO REFER INFORMANT TO MAGISTRATE - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner Kishori Lal Bhardwaj filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging that First Information Reports (FIRs) and complaints made by him to the police authorities remained unattended. He sought a direction to the police to investigate the offenses disclosed in the FIRs and complaints and proceed according to law.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that there is a statutory obligation on the police to investigate a cognizable offense, except in cases falling under the proviso to section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court also held that there is a statutory duty on the officer-in-charge of a police station to make a report to the Magistrate upon receiving information or having reasons to suspect the commission of a cognizable offense, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the CrPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the police have a duty to investigate a cognizable offense? 2. Whether the police have a duty to refer the informant to the Magistrate in case of a non-cognizable offense? 3. What is the procedure to be followed by the police when they receive information about a non-cognizable offense?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that there is a statutory obligation on the police to investigate a cognizable offense, except in cases falling under the proviso to section 157 of the CrPC. 2. The court held that there is a statutory duty on the officer-in-charge of a police station to refer the informant to the Magistrate in case of a non-cognizable offense. 3. The court held that the police should make a brief and intelligible record of the information in the station diary, sign and seal it, and provide a copy to the informant. The informant should be informed that the allegations reveal a non-cognizable offense and that they should approach the Magistrate for appropriate orders if they wish the matter to be investigated by the police.
Final Decision: The court directed the petitioner to approach the Chief Judicial Magistrate for appropriate orders, irrespective of the lapse of time since the reports were made to the police. The court also held that the failure of the police to refer the petitioner to the Magistrate should not prejudice the petitioner's right to seek appropriate orders from the Magistrate.
V.K. Mehrotra, J.—Petitioner Kishori Lal Bhardwaj, a resident of village Parag, Tehsil and District Solan, came to this Court in the month of September, 1991 for redress by instituting the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution,
2. Bereft of unnecessary details the grievance of the petitioner, essentially, is that First Information Report Nos. 178 of 1990, 12 and 18 of 1991 made by him at Police Station, Solan, remained unattended by the police authorities. Likewise, the complaints of which copies have been appended as Annexures-PD and PI to the petition, made in writing, to the Addl. Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police, Solan, met the same fate, What Kishori Lal prays in the present petition is that respondents No. 1 and 2 be directed to investigate into the offences disclosed in the aforesaid First Information Reports and complaints and proceed, thereafter, in accordance with law by presenting challans in respect thereof in the appropriate Courts.
3. On September 23, 1991 this Court directed issue of notice to the respondents of the petition of which the first two are the Director General of Police, H P. and the Superintendent of Police, Solan, The other respondents are private persons against whom some allegations have been made by the petitioner.
4. On being served with notices aforesaid a reply has been filed on behalf of the first two respondents which has been sworn by the Superintendent of Police, Solan The private respondents have also filed a common reply and have appeared through a Counsel. In substance, what has been stated on behalf of the first two respondents is that each one of these reports was looked into and it was found that in respect of some of them no action was called for. Also, that in respect of one of them, namely, F. I. R. No. 178 of 1990 a chailan has been presented in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan.
5. Basically, in respect of the offences regarding which no action is proposed to be taken by the Police, the stand taken is that they did not disclose commission of a cognizable offence. The grievance of the petitioner, as ably put forward on his behalf by Shri D. D. Sood, his Counsel, is that the petitioner has remained unaware of the action taken on the various reports. Also, that no information has yet been received by the petitioner from any Court of law even in respect of the challan said to have been forwarded to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate regarding the grievance made in the First Information Report No. 178.
6. Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter, "the Code") contains the provisions relating to information of commission of offences to the police and its power to investigate them. Under section 155 (I), when information is given to an officer-in-charge of a police station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate. Sub-section (2) of section 155 says that no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. Sub-section (3) then says i any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer-in-charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case.
7. When information in respect of a cognizable offence is received by an officer-in-charge of a police station he is empowered to investigate it without obtaining any orders of a Magistrate, This is contemplated by section 156. Section 157 then says that if the officer-in-charge of a police station gets information or comes to know otherwise that there is reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence he is to forthwith send a report t
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
