The police is obligated to register an FIR if the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.

Heard Mr. H. K. Shikarwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Binod Singh, learned S.C. (L & C) for the State.

2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent no. 6 to immediately and forthwith register an FIR as a written report was made to the Officer In-charge of Chouparan Police Station (Respondent No. 6) relating to the commission of cognizable offence.

3. It appears that the petitioner had received some call in his mobiles in which an threating was given to the petitioner of committing his murder. The petitioner seems to have given a written report to the respondent no. 6 and has also provided voice recording of the calls to the respondent authority through Whatsapp. Since no FIR was instituted, the petitioner had filed several representations before the concerned authorities, but in stead of registering an FIR to redress the grievance of the petitioner, a non-FIR was registered and a proceeding was ordered to be initiated under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. in which the petitioner was made a first party and one Azhar Khan was made second party. Being aggrieved by the non-action on the part of the respondent authority in instituting an FIR, the petitioner has preferred the present writ application.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that along with the written report, sufficient proof was provided to the respondent authorities including the respondent no. 6 about the abusive language and threating given to him over his mobile and since a cognizable case was made out, the police was bound to register an FIR without making a preliminary inquiry. Learned counsel submits that a preliminary inquiry could have been conducted if the allegation made by the petitioner discloses a non-cognizable offence, but since the offence itself is a cognizable offence, the police was bound to register an FIR. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Lalita Kumari Versus Government of Uttar Pradesh and others” reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1.

5. Mr. Binod Singh, learned S.C. (L & C), on the other hand has stated that since the assertion made by the petitioner did not constitute a cognizable offence non-FIR was registered and a proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. was recommended to be initiated. It has also been stated that a formal investigation was conducted wherein it was disclosed that because of some previous enmity, the petitioner had concocted the allegations and therefore, such circumstances do not entitle registration of an FIR. Submission has been advanced that if the petitioner had any grievance with respect to non-registration of the FIR, the petitioner can very well approach the competent court by filing a complaint petition and if the same is sent to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the police is bound to investigate such offence.

6. The only question for consideration in this writ application is whether if a written report discloses a cognizable offence, is the police bound to institute an FIR or whether a preliminary inquiry can be conducted and thereafter if necessity arises or if such inquiry discloses existence of a cognizable offence, an FIR can be instituted. The question formulated aforesaid has already been laid to rest in view of the judgment in the case of “Lalita Kumari” (supra), wherein it was held as follows:

93. “The object sought to be achieved by registering the earliest information as FIR is inter alia twofold: one, that the criminal process is set into motion and is well documented from the very start; and second, that the earliest information received in relation to the commission of a cognizable offence is recorded so that there cannot be any embellishment, etc. later.

94. Principles of democracy and liberty demand a regular and efficient check on police powers. One way of keeping check on authorities with such powers is by d