Back
2017 Supreme(All) 2401
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJAI LAMBA, VIJAY LAXMI, JJ.
SMT. SANGITA DEVI - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF U.P. - Respondent
Misc. Bench No. 2652 of 2017
Decided On : 22-02-2017
For the Petitioner:Anil Kumar Tiwari, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate.
The mandatory duty of the police to register an FIR upon direction by a Magistrate and the importance of timely registration to prevent loss or dilution of evidence.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Registration of First Information Report - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 156(3), Penal Code - 156(3), 154(1) - The court discussed the duty of the Station House Officer to register a case and conduct investigation upon a judicial order, the mandatory nature of registering an FIR upon direction by a Magistrate, and the requirement of preliminary inquiry in certain cases. The court emphasized the importance of timely registration of FIR to prevent loss or dilution of evidence and the duty of the police to comply with judicial orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the Station House Officer to register a First Information Report (FIR) for a rape incident. Despite a court order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the FIR was not registered, leading the petitioner to approach the court for relief.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Station House Officer failed to comply with the judicial order to register the FIR, causing interference in the administration of criminal justice. It imposed costs on the responsible police officers and directed the recovery of the amount from them.
Issues: Non-compliance with a judicial order to register an FIR, delay in registering the FIR, and the duty of the police to follow court directives.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory nature of registering an FIR upon direction by a Magistrate, the duty of the police to conduct timely registration to prevent loss or dilution of evidence, and the requirement of preliminary inquiry in certain cases.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with the imposition of costs on the responsible police officers and directions for recovery of the amount from them.
1. The issue raised before this court is whether once an order is passed by a Magistrate having jurisdiction under section 156 (3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to lodge First Information Report/conduct investigation, can Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station ignore the order ?
2. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature mandamus directing respondent no.3 (Station House Officer, Police Station Tikait Nagar, District Barabanki) to register First Information Report against respondent nos.4 and 5.
3. Plea of the petitioner is that on 5.7.2016, in an incident, the victim/petitioner was subjected to rape by respondent nos.4 and 5. On 5.7.2016, the petitioner approached the Police Station for registration of the crime. The Station House Officer refused to lodge F.I.R. On 6.7.2016, allegedly, the petitioner moved an application to Superintendent of Police, Barabanki, however, no decision was taken by Superintendent of Police, Barabanki on the complaint of the petitioner for registration of F.I.R.
4. It has been pleaded in the petition that subsequent thereto, on 12.7.2016, the petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the appropriate court. The application was entertained and a direction was issued for registering F.I.R. and investigation, vide order Annexure No.1 dated 7.10.2016.
5. We have gone through the contents of order dated 7.10.2016. Perusal of the order clearly indicates that the court considered that prima facie a cognizable offence appears to have been committed and therefore directed Station House Officer, Police Station Tikait Nagar to register F.I.R. under relevant provisions of the Penal Code and conduct investigation.
6. When crime was not registered, the petitioner was constrained on approaching this court in its writ jurisdiction for issuance of a writ in the nature mandamus directing Station House Officer, Police Station Tikait Nagar, District Barabanki to register F.I.R., in compliance of the order passed by a court of law.
7. Order dated 7.2.2017 was passed while considering the gist of the matter. The order reads as under :-
"1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 3 to lodge First Information Report against respondents 4 and 5.
2. Short contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that although Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki directed investigation, after registration of First Information Report vide order dated 7.10.2016, the crime has not been registered.
Investigation has not been undertaken.
3. Superintendent of Police, Barabanki is directed to file his affidavit as to under what circumstance an order passed on judicial side has been ignored for five months. In case the crime has not been registered till date, cause be also shown as to why exemplary cost in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- be not imposed for non-compliance of order, Annexure-1.
4. We are conscious of the fact that with the passage of time, evidence is either lost or diluted and destroyed.
5. List on 22.2.2017.
6. No further time would be given. In case the order is not complied with, the Superintendent of Police would be required to appear in Court in person on the next date of listing."
8. In compliance of the above extracted order, short counter affidavit has been filed by Superintendent of Police, Barabanki Shri Vaibhav Krishna, which is taken on record.
9. In the affidavit, it has been stated in paragraph 6 that the averments made in the petition are true and correct. Order dated 7.10.2016 had in fact not been complied with by Station Officer, Police Station Tikait Nagar, District Barabanki. A preliminary inquiry has been ordered against the concerned Station Officer. Circle Officer has been appointed as the inquiry officer. The order vide which the inquiry had been ordered, has been filed with the short counter affidavit as Annexure SCA-2.
10. Be that as it may, as per the short counter affidavit, F.I.R. has
