LALITA KUMARI VS. GOVT. OF U.P [W.P.(Crl) No; 68/2008]

Judges– P. Sathasivam, C.J.I., B.S. Chauhan, Ranjana Prakash Desai, Ranjan Gogoi and S.A. Bobde, JJ.

Decided on: 12.11.2013

Citations- AIR 2014 Supreme Court 187, MANU/SC/0157/2012

FACTS OF THE CASE

A writ petition was filed before the supreme court of India under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution by Lalita Kumari’s father on her behalf, seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus to ensure her safety after being kidnapped. Petitioner was submitted a written report before the officer- in- charge of concerned police station who did not take any action on the same. Only after involving the Superintendent of Police a FIR was registered, but even then, the authorities failed to apprehend the accused or recover the minor girl

This case led to a significant judgment, as the Supreme Court 2 judge bench noticed inconsistencies in how police officers register FIRs across the country. The court directed the Central Government to take immediate action regarding to this issue. However, due to conflicting decisions, the matter was referred to a Constitution Bench to clarify the scope and nature of Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which deals with the registration of FIRs.

LEGAL ISSUES

• Whether a police officer is bound to register a FIR upon receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under section 154 of CrPC.
• Whether the police officer has the power to conduct a ‘preliminary inquiry’ in order to test the veracity of such information before registering the same.

LAWS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE

1. Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-

It is the duty of the police officer to register first information report i.e. FIR, where any person reported a cognizable offence.

2. Section 156 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-

This section gave the police officer power to investigate cognizable cases.

3. Section 157 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-

This section deals with the procedure for investigation of cognizable offences.

CONTENTION OF PARTIES

PETITIONER

• Section 154(1) is a mandatory provision as in this section the word ‘shall’ has been used. So, the police officer is duty bound to register FIR where the nature of offence is cognizable. He further contended that the police officer has no discretionary power to not register a cognizable offence.
• When the police officer received the information about the cognizable offence then he must enter the report to the maintained registered for the said purpose.
• The police officer has lacked the discretion to verify the accuracy of the information given by any person regarding the cognizable offence before registering it.
• The contention of the petition relied on two most important case i.e. State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal (1992 SC) and Ramesh Kumari V. State (NCT of Delhi) (2006 SC). Which states that upon receipt of information regarding to cognizable offence by police officer in- charge of a concerned police station, it is imperative to register a case under section 154 of the code of criminal procedure.

RESPONDENT

• After receiving an information about a cognizable offence under section 154 of CrPC, the investigating officer has the power to conduct Preliminary inquiry before registering the FIR.
• In various cases such as matrimonial disputes, commercial cases, medical negligence cases and in corruption related cases, police departments across India have the power to conduct inquiries or preliminary inquiries before registering the FIR under section 154 of CrPC.
• Different states including Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and others have their own police rules that allow police officers to conduct inquiries before registering a FIR.
• The respondent referred P. Sirajuddin V. State of Madras (1970 SC) case.

REASONING

1. What is the legislative intent behind the Section 154 of CrPC-
2. The language used in Section 154of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) clearly indicates the legislative intent that when an information about a cognizable offense is given orally to an officer-in-charge of police station then they must register it in writing.
3. To register a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154, two essential conditions must be met, firstly the information must be provided, and secondly it must disclose a cognizable offense.
4. If the officer-in-charge receives information that satisfies the conditions then they have no choice but to record the substance of the information in the prescribed manner, effectively registering a case.
5. In summary, Section 154of the CrPC is mandatory, and the concerned officer is duty-bound to register a case based on information which is disclosing a cognizable offense.
6. Implication of the word ‘shall’ in the section 154 of CrPC: –
7. The use of “shall” in Section 154(1) of the CrPC indicates a legislative intent to mandate the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) when information regarding to a cognizable offense is received.
8. The purpose of using “shall” is to ensure the registration and investigation of all cognizable offenses.
9. For cognizable offenses, the police officers are duty bound to register an FIR and conduct an investigation, unless specifically exempted under Section 157of the CrPC.
10. Allowing police discretion in registering FIRs could lead to serious public order consequences and infringe upon victims’ rights, including their right to equality.
11. The word “shall” in Section 154(1) must be interpreted as mandatory.

• Whether the word ‘Information’ in Section 154of CrPC has its reasonableness or creditability is a condition precedent for the registration of FIR: –

1. When a police officer receives information about a cognizable offense, they are duty-bound to register a case. The authenticity or credibility of the information is not a prerequisite for registering the case.
2. At the initial stage of registering a crime or case, the police officer cannot investigate the reliability or genuineness of the information provided. They cannot refuse to register a case solely because they doubt the credibility of the information.
3. Whether preliminary inquiry can be done by the police officer before registration of FIR: –
4. Investigating an offense after registering a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154of the CrPC follows the “procedure established by law,” aligning with Article 21 of the Constitution.
5. Registering a FIR and then conducting an investigation according to law also safeguards the accused’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
6. Significance and Compelling reasons for registration of FIR at the earliest

Registering the initial information as a First Information Report (FIR) serves two primary purposes:

1. It initiates the criminal process, ensuring thorough documentation from the outset.
2. It records the earliest information received about a cognizable offense, preventing potential alterations or distortions later on.
3. Whether mandate of compulsory registration of FIR in contravention to the article 21 of the Indian constitution: –
4. Registering a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154of the CrPC and arresting an accused under Section 41 are distinct processes.
5. The concern that registering a FIR would inevitably lead to an arrest and damage to the accused’s reputation is unfounded. Instead, the focus should be on preventing arbitrary arrests by enforcing existing safeguards.
6. The CrPC provides sufficient protections against false FIRs, ensuring individual liberties are respected.
7. Section 154prioritizes the interests of victims and society, making mandatory FIR registration consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution.

THE COMMITTEE ON REFORMS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

The Supreme Court accepts the observations of the committee in this case. The observations of the committee are as follows:

• Section 154of the CrPC mandates police officers to register all information related to cognizable offenses. However, there’s a growing trend of police officers asking informants to provide written complaints instead of registering oral complaints immediately.
• Delayed registration wastes valuable time in investigating and apprehending criminals.
• Complainants may exaggerate or distort facts after consulting others, which can implicate innocent individuals and harm the case.
• The first version of the alleged crime should be recorded immediately to maintain accuracy.
• The issue persists where police officers refuse to entertain complaints in cognizable cases or misrepresent facts due to external pressures or corruption. To address this, it’s essential to make registration of complaints is obligatory for police officers.
• While balancing societal interests and individual liberties is crucial, sufficient safeguards within the CrPC protect individuals from false FIR registrations.
• Therefore, mandatory FIR registration under Section 154doesn’t contravene Article 21 of the Constitution.

CONCLUSION

• Registering a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154of the CrPC is mandatory when information reveals a cognizable offense. No preliminary inquiry is allowed in such cases.
• If the information doesn’t disclose a cognizable offense but suggests an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to determine if a cognizable offense has occurred.
• If the inquiry reveals a cognizable offense, a FIR must be registered. If the complaint is closed, the first informant must receive a copy of the closure entry within one week, stating reasons for closure.
• Police officers must register an offense if a cognizable offense is disclosed. Concerned officers who fail to register FIRs must face action.
• The preliminary inquiry’s purpose is to determine if the information reveals a cognizable offense, not to verify its accuracy.
• The cases which is requiring preliminary inquiry depend on individual circumstances. The cases which required preliminary inquiries are as follows: –
• Matrimonial disputes
• Commercial offenses
• Medical negligence
• Corruption
• Unexplained delays in reporting crimes.
• Preliminary inquiries should be time-bound, typically not exceeding 15 days, or six weeks in exceptional cases with adequate reasons. Delays and reasons must be recorded in the General Diary.
• All information related to cognizable offenses, including FIRs and inquiries, must be meticulously recorded in the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary.

REFERENCES

1. Lalita Kumari V. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1
2. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
3. Indian Constitution, 1950
4. Lalita Kumari V. Govt. of U.P. and Ors. (MANU/SC/1166/2013