2013 (11) TMI 1520 - SC - Indian Laws

Registration of FIR under Section 154 CrPC is mandatory if cognizable offence is disclosed, no police discretion allowed

LALITA KUMARI Versus GOVT. OF UP. & ORS.

The SC held that registration of an FIR under Section 154 CrPC is mandatory whenever information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Police ... Mandatory Registration of FIR - Interpretation of Section 154 - Whether “a police officer is bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence u/s 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 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 - Held that:- The signature of the complainant is obtained in the FIR Book as and when the complaint is given to the police station. On the other hand, there is no such requirement of obtaining signature of the complainant in the general diary. Moreover, at times, the complaint given may consist of large number of pages, in which case it is only the gist of the complaint which is to be recorded in the General Diary and not the full complaint. This does not fit in with the suggestion that what is recorded in General Diary should be considered to be the fulfillment/compliance of the requirement of Section 154 of registration of FIR. In fact, the usual practice is to record the complete complaint in the FIR book (or annex it with the FIR form) but record only about one or two paragraphs (gist of the information) in the General Diary. The police thus had the statutory right and duty to “register” every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. The police also had the statutory right and duty to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case where the commission of a cognizable offence was suspected and to submit the report of such investigation to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report. These statutory rights and duties of the police were not circumscribed by any power of superintendence or interference in the Magistrate; nor was any sanction required from a Magistrate to empower the Police to investigate into a cognizable offence. This position in law was well-established. Police is duty bound to proceed to conduct investigation into a cognizable offence even without receiving information (i.e. FIR) about commission of such an offence, if the officer in charge of the police station otherwise suspects the commission of such an offence. The legislative intent is therefore quite clear, i.e., to ensure that every cognizable offence is promptly investigated in accordance with law. This being the legal position, there is no reason that there should be any discretion or option left with the police to register or not to register an FIR when information is given about the commission of a cognizable offence. Every cognizable offence must be investigated promptly in accordance with law and all information provided under Section 154 of the Code about the commission of a cognizable offence must be registered as an FIR so as to initiate an offence. The requirement of Section 154 of the Code is only that the report must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and that is sufficient to set the investigating machinery into action. 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 documenting every action of theirs. Accordingly, under the Code, actions of the police etc., are provided to be written and documented. For example, in case of arrest under Section 41(1)(b) of the Code, arrest memo along with the grounds has to be in writing mandatorily; under Section 55 of the Code, if an officer is deputed to make an arrest, then the superior officer has to write down and record the offence etc., for which the person is to be arrested; under Section 91 of the Code, a written order has to be passed by the concerned officer to seek documents; under Section 160 of the Code, a written notice has to be issued to the witness so that he can be called for recording of his/her statement, seizure memo/panchnama has to be drawn for every article seized etc. Number of FIRs not registered is approximately equivalent to the number of FIRs actually registered. Keeping in view the NCRB figures that show that about 60 lakh cognizable offences were registered in India during the year 2012, the burking of crime may itself be in the range of about 60 lakh every year. Thus, it is seen that such a large number of FIRs are not registered every year, which is a clear violation of the rights of the victims of such a large number of crimes. - Burking of crime leads to dilution of the rule of law in the short run; and also has a very negative impact on the rule of law in the long run since people stop having respect for rule of law. Thus, non-registration of such a large number of FIRs leads to a definite lawlessness in the society. - Therefore, reading Section 154 in any other form would not only be detrimental to the Scheme of the Code but also to the society as a whole. It is thus seen that this Court has repeatedly held in various decided cases that registration of FIR is mandatory if the information given to the police under Section 154 of the Code discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The registration of FIR under Section 154 of the Code and arrest of an accused person under Section 41 are two entirely different things. It is not correct to say that just because FIR is registered, the accused person can be arrested immediately. It is the imaginary fear that “merely because FIR has been registered, it would require arrest of the accused and thereby leading to loss of his reputation” and it should not be allowed by this Court to hold that registration of FIR is not mandatory to avoid such inconvenience to some persons. The remedy lies in strictly enforcing the safeguards available against arbitrary arrests made by the police and not in allowing the police to avoid mandatory registration of FIR when the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Code gives power to the police to close a matter both before and after investigation. A police officer can foreclose an FIR before an investigation under Section 157 of the Code, if it appears to him that there is no sufficient ground to investigate the same. The Section itself states that a police officer can start investigation when he has a ‘reason to suspect the commission of an offence’. Therefore, the requirements of launching an investigation under Section 157 of the Code are higher than the requirement under Section 154 of the Code. The police officer can also, in a given case, investigate the matter and then file a final report under Section 173 of the Code seeking closure of the matter. Therefore, the police is not liable to launch an investigation in every FIR which is mandatorily registered on receiving information relating to commission of a cognizable offence. Section 154 of the Code postulates the mandatory registration of FIRs on receipt of all cognizable offence, yet, there may be instances where preliminary inquiry may be required owing to the change in genesis and novelty of crimes with the passage of time. One such instance is in the case of allegations relating to medical negligence on the part of doctors. It will be unfair and inequitable to prosecute a medical professional only on the basis of the allegations in the complaint. In view of various counter claims regarding registration or non-registration, what is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR. - Petition disposed of. Issues Involved:1. Whether a police officer is bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon receiving any information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or if the police officer has the power to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering the FIRRs.Detailed Analysis:Mandatory Registration of FIR:The core issue in this judgment is whether the registration of an FIR is mandatory upon receiving information about a cognizable offence or if the police can conduct a preliminary inquiry first. The court held that the registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The use of the word 'shall' in Section 154(1) indicates the statutory intent that it is obligatory for the police to register an FIR.Preliminary Inquiry:The court recognized that in certain exceptional cases, a preliminary inquiry might be necessary. These cases include matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases, and cases where there is an abnormal delay in initiating criminal prosecution. However, the scope of such an inquiry is limited to ascertaining whether the information reveals any cognizable offence and not to verify the veracity of the information.Legislative Intent and Historical Background:The judgment delves into the legislative intent behind Section 154 and its historical background, tracing the evolution of the provision from the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1861, to the current Code of 1973. It emphasizes that the legislative intent has always been to ensure the prompt registration of FIRs to set the criminal law in motion and to prevent manipulation by the police.Interpretation of 'Information':The court clarified that the term 'information' in Section 154(1) is not qualified by the words 'reasonable' or 'credible,' unlike in Section 41(1)(a) and (g). This indicates that the police officer should not refuse to record information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence on the ground that it is not credible or reasonable.Safeguards Against Misuse:While acknowledging concerns about the potential misuse of mandatory FIR registration, the court noted that arrest is not mandatory upon FIR registration. Various safeguards exist to prevent arbitrary arrests, including the right to anticipatory bail and the requirement for police officers to have reasonable justification for arrest.Directions Issued:1. Mandatory Registration: Registration of FIR is mandatory if the information discloses a cognizable offence.2. Preliminary Inquiry: If the information does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed.3. Closure of Complaint: If the preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the closure entry must be supplied to the informant within one week, with reasons for closure.4. Action Against Erring Officers: Action must be taken against officers who fail to register an FIR if the information discloses a cognizable offence.5. Scope of Preliminary Inquiry: The inquiry is limited to ascertaining whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.6. Types of Cases for Preliminary Inquiry: Preliminary inquiries may be conducted in matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases, and cases with abnormal delays in reporting.7. Time-bound Inquiry: Preliminary inquiries should be completed within seven days, and the reasons for any delay must be recorded in the General Diary.8. General Diary Entries: All information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in FIR registration or leading to an inquiry, must be recorded in the General Diary.Conclusion:The court concluded that the registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code if the information discloses a cognizable offence, and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such situations. The judgment aims to ensure transparency, prompt investigation, and judicial oversight in the criminal justice system while protecting the rights of both the accused and the complainant.