Back
2013 Supreme(UK) 508
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice P. Sathasivam, Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68 of 2008
LALITA KUMARI – Petitioner(s)
Versus
GOVT. OF U.P. & ORS. – Respondent(s)
WITH Criminal Appeal No. 1410 of 2011, Criminal Appeal No. 1267 of 2007
and Contempt Petition (C) No. D26722 of 2008
Decided on : 12.11.2013
For the Appellant : Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan, learned counsel
For the Respondents: Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, Learned Sr. Counsel, Mr. K.V. Viswanatha, learned Additional Solicitor General, Dr. Ashok Dhamija, Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Mr. R.K. Dash, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Mr. Vibha Datta Makhija, Learned Counsels
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 154 — Scope — Registration of FIR — Mandatory — Held that the information given to the police must disclose commission of a cognizable offence — And that Sec. 154, Cr.P.C. uses the word “information” simpliciter and does not use the qualified words such as “credible information” or “reasonable complaint” — And it would not be legally permissible to allow the police to make a preliminary inquiry into the allegations before registering an FIR u/s 154, Criminal Code (Paras 12, 16)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 154 and Police Act, 1861, Sec. 44 — If at all, there is any inconsistency in the provisions of Sec. 154, Cr.P.C. and Sec. 44, Police Act, w.r.t. the fact as to whether the FIR is to be registered in the FIR book or in the General Diary — Provisions of Sec. 154, Cr.P.C. will prevail and the provisions of Sec. 44, Police Act, 1861 or similar provisions of the respective corresponding Police Act or Rules in other respective States shall be void to the extent of the repugnancy — Thus, FIR is to be recorded in the FIR Book, as mandated u/s 154, Criminal Code. (Para 61)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 154 and Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 21 — Interpretation of — Maxim expression “Unius est exclusion alterius (expression of one thing is the exclusion of another) applies in the interpretation of Sec. 154, Criminal Code where the mandate of recording the information in writing excludes the possibility of not recording an information of commission of a cognizable crime in the special register — Therefore, conducting an investigation into an offence after registration of FIR u/s 154 of the Code is the “procedure established by law” — Thus, is in conformity with Art. 21 of the Constitution — Accordingly, the right of the accused u/Art. 21 of the Constitution is protected if the FIR is registered first and then the investigation is conducted in accordance with the provisions of law. (Para 75)
(D) First Information Report — Registration or non-registration — Necessary directions for — Stated. (Paras 110 and 111)
¼v½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 154 & foLrkj & ntZ djkuk & vfuok;Zrk & /kkfjr fd iqfyl dks nh xbZ lwpuk esa laKs; vijk/k dk djuk vuko`r gksuk pkfg, & vkSj /kkjk 154, Cr.P.C. lkekU;r% ‘kCn lwpuk dk iz;ksx djrk gS vkSj fo’oluh; lwpuk ;k ß;qfDreku f’kdk;rÞ tSls vgZ ‘kCnksa dk ugha & vkSj iqfyl dks ;g fof/kd vuqefr ugha fd u/s 154] n.M lafgrk FIR ntZ djus ls iwoZ vkjksiksa dh izkjfEHkd tk¡p djh tk,A ¼izLrj 12] 16½
¼c½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 154 vkSj iqfyl vf/kfu;e] 1861] /kkjk 44 & vxj /kkjk 154] Cr.P.C. vkSj /kkjk 44] iqfyl vf/kfu;e] 1861 ds izko/kkuksa esa vlaxfr gks] rF;ksa ds laca/k esa fd FIR dks FIR iqLrd esa ntZ fd;k tk, ;k G.D. esa rc /kkjk 154] Cr.P.C. ds izko/kku vfHkHkkoh vkSj /kkjk 44 iqfyl vf/kfu;e] 1861 ds izko/kku ;k Øe’k% rRleku iqfyl vf/kfu;e ;k fu;ekoyh ds le:i izko/kku vU; Øe’k% jkT;ksa esa fojks/k dh ek=k ds foLrkj rd izHkkoghu gksaxs & bl izdkj FIR, FIR iqLrd esa gh vfHkdfFkr djuh pkfg, tSlk fd u/s 154] n.M lafgrk esa vfuok;ZA ¼izLrj 61½
¼l½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 154 vkSj Hkkjrh; lafo/kku] 1950] vuqPNsn 21 & fl)kUr vfHkO;fDr “Unius est exclusion alterius ¼,d pht dh vfHkO;fDr nwljs dk viotZu gksrh gS½ ;g /kkjk 154] n.M lafgrk ds fuoZpu esa mi;ksftr tgk¡ lwpuk ds fyf[kr esa vfHkys[ku dh vfuok;Zrk dks vioftZr fd;k tkrk gS] laHkkouk dks fdlh laKs; vijk/k ds dkfjr gksus dh lwpuk dks fof’k”V jftLVj esa vfHkys[ku dh laHkkouk ls & bl izdkj u/s 154, FIR ntZ gksus ij vijk/k dh tk¡p djuk] fof/k esa LFkkfir izfØ;k gS] tks fd vuqPNsn 21] Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuq:i gS & rn~uqlkj u/Art. 21, lafo/kku vfHk;qDr ds vf/kdkj lqjf{kr] vxj FIR igys ntZ gks vkSj rc dkuwuh izkoèkkuksa ds vuqlkj tk¡p djk;h tk,A ¼izLrj 75½
¼n½ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ & jftLVªhdj.k ;k vjftLVªhdj.k & ds fy, vko’;d funsZ’k & foojf.krA ¼izLrj 110 vkSj 111½
P. Sathasivam, CJI. — The important issue which arises for consideration in the referred matter is whether “a police officer is bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) or the police officer has the power to conduct a “preliminary inquiry” in order to test the veracity of such information before registering the same?”
2. The present writ petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution, has been filed by one Lalita Kumari (minor) through her father, viz., Shri Bhola Kamat for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus or direction(s) of like nature against the respondents herein for the protection of his minor daughter who has been kidnapped. The grievance in the said writ petition is that on 11.05.2008, a written report was submitted by the petitioner before the officer in-charge of the police station concerned who did not take any action on the same. Thereafter, when the Superintendent of Police was moved, an FIR was registered. According to the petitioner, even thereafter, steps were not taken either for apprehending the accused or for the recovery of the minor girl child.
3. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in, Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 7 SCC 164, after noticing the disparity in registration of FIRs by police officers on case to case basis across the country, issued notice to the Union of India, the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories and Director Generals of Police/Commissioners of Police to the effect that if steps are not taken for registration of FIRs immediately and the copies thereof are not handed over to the complainants, they may move the Magistrates concerned by filing complaint petitions for appropriate direction(s) to the police to register the case immediately and for apprehending the accused persons, failing which, contempt proceedings must be initiated against such delinquent police officers if no sufficient cause is shown.
4. Pursuant to the above directions, when the matter was heard by the very same Bench in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 14 SCC 337, Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, projected his claim that upon receipt of information by a police officer in-charge of a police station disclosing a cognizable offence, it is imperative for him to register a case under Section 154 of the Code and placed reliance upon two-Judge Bench decisions of this Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, Ramesh Kumari vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2006) 2 SCC 677 and Parkash Singh Badal vs. State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC 1. On the other hand, Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel for the State of Maharashtra submitted that an officer in-charge of a police station is not obliged under law, upon receipt of information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, to register a case rather the discretion lies with him, in appropriate cases, to hold some sort of preliminary inquiry in relation to the veracity or otherwise of the accusations made in the report. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon two-Judge Bench decisions of this Court in P. Sirajuddin vs. State of Madras (1970) 1 SCC 595, Sevi vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1981 Supp SCC 43, Shashikant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2007) 1 SCC 630, and Rajinder Singh Katoch vs. Chandigarh Admn. (2007) 10 SCC 69. In view of the conflicting decisions of this Court on the issue, the said bench, vide order dated 16.09.2008, referred the same to a larger bench.
5. Ensuing compliance to the above direction, the matter pertaining to Lalita Kumari was heard by a Bench of three-Judges in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2012) 4 SCC 1 wherein, this Court, after hearing various counsel representing Union of India, States and Union Territories
