FIR registration delay and omission of disclosed offence treated as laxity in duty to register a cognizable case.

Police delay in registering an FIR after a complaint disclosed a cognizable offence was treated as a breach of statutory duty. The complaint had been entered in the general diary and inquired into, but no FIR was registered until after service of the writ petition. The record also showed that the facts prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, yet that offence was omitted from the case registered. The omission and delay were treated as clear laxity in registering the cognizable case, and supervisory authorities were directed to note recurring failures of this kind.

---

---

Issues: Whether the police were justified in delaying or declining registration of the first information report on the basis of the complaint, and whether the omission to include the disclosed offence reflected neglect of statutory duty.

Analysis: The complaint was entered in the general diary and an inquiry was conducted, but no first information report was registered until after the writ petition had been served. The order records that the facts prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, yet that section was omitted from the case registered. The Court treated this as a clear instance of laxity in discharging the obligation to register a cognizable case and directed supervisory authorities to take note of recurring failures of this kind.

Conclusion: The police action was found unjustified and negligent, and the omission to register the case promptly and under the appropriate provision was treated as improper.

---