1998 Supreme(All) 160

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
BINOD KUMAR ROY, P. K. JAIN
SHYAM LAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
CRI. M. W. P. 37 Of 1998
Decided On : 02/13/1998

An accused person has a right to inspect the FIR and is entitled to a certified copy thereof.

Headnote:

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT - RIGHT TO INSPECT - CERTIFIED COPY - ENTITLED TO ACCUSED - PUBLIC DOCUMENT - SECTION 74 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - SECTION 154 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - SECTION 207 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - SECTION 76 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - RULE 518 OF THE U. P. POLICE REGULATION - COURT FEES ACT, 1870 - INDIAN STAMP ACT, 1899 - CIVIL COURT RULES - RIGHT TO KNOW - ARTICLE 19 (1) (A) AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, claiming to be the Joint Secretary of the Samajvadi Party of District Chandauli, filed a writ petition to quash the first information report (FIR) registered against him and several other party workers. The FIR was allegedly lodged by a rival political party member, Udai Nath Singh, who was contesting the MLC elections from Varanasi constituency on a Bharatiya Janata Party ticket. The petitioner alleged that the FIR was false and politically motivated, and that the police had refused to provide him with a certified copy of the FIR despite his repeated requests.

Finding of the Court:

The court observed that the petitioner had not filed a certified copy of the FIR along with the writ petition, and that the petitioner had not explained how he had obtained the plain copy of the FIR that was attached to the petition. The court also noted that the counter-affidavit filed by the Station Officer of the police station where the FIR was registered denied the correctness of the petitioner's statements and provided a handwritten copy of the FIR.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a certified copy of the FIR. 2. Whether the police are obligated to provide a certified copy of the FIR to the petitioner. 3. Whether the petitioner's right to know and right to inspect public documents under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to obtain a certified copy of the FIR.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner, as an accused person, has a right to inspect the FIR and is entitled to a certified copy thereof. 2. The court relied on various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Evidence Act, and the Police Regulation to support its conclusion. 3. The court noted that Section 74 of the Evidence Act defines a public document as one that forms the acts or records of the acts of public officers, and that Section 76 of the Evidence Act requires public officers to provide certified copies of public documents to any person who has a right to inspect them. 4. The court also noted that Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the Magistrate to furnish the accused with a copy of the FIR, and that Rule 518 of the U. P. Police Regulation provides for the supply of copies of police records, including FIRs, to private individuals or bodies. 5. The court further held that the petitioner's right to know and right to inspect public documents under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to obtain a certified copy of the FIR. 6. The court noted that the FIR is a public document that contains important information about the alleged offence, and that the petitioner has a legitimate interest in obtaining a certified copy of the FIR in order to prepare his defense.

Final Decision: The court directed the office to send a copy of the order to the Director General of Police and all the District Judges of the State to ensure the stoppage of supply of Xerox copies of the FIRs from the Police Stations of the State or from the office of the CJM/Judicial Magistrates respectively.