SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 11659

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ, MR. PRANAV TRIVEDI, J
SOHANABEN HANIFKHAN MALEK SINCE MINOR THROUGH HER GUARDIAN HANIFABEN BISMILLAKHAN JATMALIK – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 1 of 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:MR YATIN OZA SR. ADVOCATE, MR VICKY B MEHTA
For the Respondents: MR KM ANTANI ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER

Police are mandated to register FIRs for cognizable offenses reported under the Criminal Procedure Code.

Headnote:This judgment pertains to a public interest litigation concerning the alleged non-registration of an FIR regarding the killing of a minor by police personnel. The court emphasizes the obligation of police to register FIRs when cognizable offenses are reported, as per Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The proceedings are directed to ensure compliance with legal standards in any future inquiries by magistrates. The court disposes of the petition with directives to approach the magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, ensuring independent inquiry.

Table of Content
1. police's duty in fir registration (Para 1 , 2)
2. expectations from police conduct (Para 3)
3. petitioner's efforts regarding fir (Para 4)
4. directions for independent inquiry (Para 5)
5. disposition of the petition (Para 6)

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. This petition has been filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation reporting of the incident occurred on 06.11.2021 near the house of the petitioner, wherein 14 years old brother of the petitioner, allegedly had been killed by the Police Personnel of Bajana Police Station, Surendranagar.

2. The petitioner claims to be daughter of deceased Hanifkhan alias Kalo Munno Amirkhan Jatmalik and sister of Madeenkhan Hanifkhan Jatmalik, who were killed in alleged fake encounter by the respondent no. 5 namely, Virendrasinh Navalsinh Jadeja, the Police Sub-Inspector, Bajana Police Station, Post Malvan, Taluka : Patdi, District: Surendranagar and would submit that her efforts to lodge the First Information Report about the incident of killing an innocent boy of 14 years of age in a fake encounter wherein father of the petitioner had been killed, went in oblivion. It is submitted that the efforts made by the petitioner to lodge the First Information Report had not been materialized.

3. In the instant case, it is to be noted that the conduct of the police authority is most unfortunate. It is the duty of every police officer to carry out his/her functions in a public spirited manner. The Police must be cognizable of the fact that they are usually the first point of contact of crime or a complaint. They must abide by the law and enable the smooth registration of First Information Report. They must act in a fair and impartial manner. The Police ought not to create an obstacle by declining registration of First Information Report in particular, when the allegations are under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code . If the information given clearly mentions commission of the cognizance offence, there is no other option to register First Information Report forthwith. The other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of First Information Report, such as whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the First Information Report. Whether or not the alleged offence in the complaint is made out or not is to be determined at the stage of investigation and/or trial. If after conducting the investigation, the Police finds that no offence is made out, they may file ‘B’ report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . However, it is not open to them to decline registration of First Information Report. The law in this regard is clear and the Police Officers cannot exercise any discretion when they receive complaint which discloses the commission of cognizable offence.

4. However, on the asking of the Court as to whether the petitioner had approached the Court of the Magistrate by invoking the provisions of Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , no answer could be given by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner. It is submitted that efforts made by the petitioner by invoking the provisions of Section 154 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to lodge First Information Report had not been fruitful. It is further contended that even this Court within the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can issue appropriate directions to lodge the First Information Report.

5. Taking note of the above, without entering into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, the present petition is being disposed of with the observation that the petitioner namely, the daughter and sister of two deceased is at liberty to approach the Court of the concerned Magistrate, by moving an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

5.1. On such

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top