Analysis of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P [(2008) 7 SCC 164]

INTRODUCTION

Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 lays down procedure regarding the information given to the police in cognizable cases and provides for the manner in which such information is to be recorded. An analysis of Section 154 is as follows:

1. The information is to be given to an officer in charge of the police station having jurisdiction for investigating the case.
2. If the information is given orally to such an officer, it shall be reduced to writing by the officer himself or under his direction.
3. The information, if given in writing, or if reduced to writing, shall be signed by the informant. Such information shall also be read over to the informant.
4. The substance of the information is then to be entered by the police officer in a book kept by him in the prescribed form. This book is called the FIR Book or FIR Register.
5. The informant then shall forthwith be given a copy of the information as recorded in the aforesaid manner.

Further, Section 154 (3), states, if any person is aggrieved by a refusal on the part of the police officer in charge of a police station to record the information. He may send by post the substance of such information in writing to the Superintendent of Police concerned. If the Superintendent is satisfied that the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. He shall either investigate the case himself. Or direct an investigation to be made by a subordinate police officer in the manner provided by the Code.

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court passed a landmark judgment on 12^th November 2013. It laid down detailed guidelines with respect to the investigation by police officials regarding criminal offences. It has been held by the Bench that if the information given to the police discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The police have to mandatorily register FIR under Section 154 of the CrPC. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given.

Then the FIR needs to be registered immediately and the police may conduct a preliminary verification for the limited purpose of ascertaining. As to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. The court has mentioned a category of cases in which the preliminary inquiry may be made. Such cases include matrimonial/ family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases, and cases where there is a delay in initiating criminal prosecution.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The present case arose by way of a writ petition filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 by Lalita Kumari. Through her father for issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus or directions. Like nature for the protection of the minor daughter who had been kidnapped. The allegations of the petitioner were that; even after submitting a written report to the officer-in-charge of the police station; no action was taken. Thereafter, he had to move the Superintendent of Police, after which an FIR was registered. Even thereafter, no steps were taken by the police authorities to trace the accused.

ISSUE

The issue before the Constitution Bench was to interpret Section 154 i.e. To decide whether a police officer is bound to register FIR upon receiving information. Regarding the commission of the cognizable offence or do police officers have the power to conduct a preliminary inquiry to test the veracity of such information before registering the FIR. In addition to the above issue, the Bench also looked into, Section 156 and Section 157 of the Code. This envisages the police officer’s power to investigate the cognizable case. Alos the procedure for investigation respectively.

ANALYSIS

Contention of the Parties

It was stated by the Petitioner’s counsel that the use of the word “shall” in Section 154(1); In itself indicates that there is no discretion given to the police officer except to register an FIR. He also contended that the language used in Section 154(1) employs the word “information” without prefixing the words “credible” or “reasonable”. To support the above contentions, he placed reliance on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal[1], B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal[2], Aleque Padamsee and Others vs. Union of India and Others[3], M/s Hiralal Rattanlal Etc. Etc. vs. State of U.P. and Anr. Etc.[4], and Govindlal Chhaganlal Patel vs. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Godhra and Ors.[5].

The senior counsel on behalf of the State of Maharashtra. However contended that the police officer should have the discretion of conducting a preliminary inquiry. In order to satisfy himself of the credibility of the information to ascertain. Whether a prima facie case of commission of the cognizable offense is made out. He also contended that the literal interpretation of Section 154 would reduce the registration of FIR into a mechanical act. He further contended that the provisions of Section 154 should be interpret in light of Article 21; requiring the procedure to be fair and just. Thus, it was concluded by the Respondent’s counsel that the police officer should have the discretion of conducting inquiry; in cases of doubt and that the provisions of Section 154 should not be applied. Like a straight jacket formula.

Observations by the Court

1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while applying the literal rule of interpretation observed that; the use of the word “shall” shows the intention of the legislature. That it is mandatory for the police officer to register FIR if the information given to the police discloses the commission of the cognizable offence. In this regard, reliance was placed by the court on M/s Hiralal Rattanlal.
2. Further, it was also observed that the registration of FIR is to be done in a book called FIR book or FIR register. In addition, the gist of the FIR may be mention in the General Diary. It contains records of the day-to-day activities of the police station. In this regard, reliance was placed on Madhu Bala vs. Suresh Kumar[6], wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that FIR must be registered in the FIR Register which shall be a book consisting of 200 pages.
3. The court observed that in the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of Section 154 of the Code and Section 44 of the Police Act, 1861 as to whether the FIR is to be registered in the FIR book or in the General Diary, the provisions of the Code would prevail over the provisions of the Police Act and FIR will be recorded in the FIR book as mandated under Section 154 of the Code.
4. Further, it was observed that the reasonableness/credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for the registration of FIR.
5. It was observed that the conducting of the investigation after the FIR is registered under Section 154 of the Code, is in conformity with Article 21 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the right of the accused under Article 21 is protected if the FIR is registered first and then the investigation is conducted in accordance with the provisions of law.
6. The court also pondered on the advantages and significance of registering the FIR at the earliest. It sets the criminal law in motion while ensuring that a fair investigation is carried out with no scope of tampering the evidence that is collected during the investigation.
7. Though the court opined the mandatory registration of FIR on receipt of all cognizable offences, it also laid down certain exceptions where the police officer may conduct a preliminary inquiry prior to registering the FIR. These exceptions are in the cases of medical negligence, offences relating to corruption if the information given does not disclose a cognizable offence, matrimonial disputes, commercial offences and cases where there is an abnormal delay in initiating criminal prosecution. 

CONCLUSION

In any criminal proceeding, the First Information Report (FIR) is the most important and valuable document. FIR is the first step that helps the investigating authorities in obtaining information about the alleged criminal activity so as to enable the authorities to take appropriate steps to trace the accused. It is the principal document that gives the earliest information regarding the occurrence of events. And the police cannot refuse to register a complaint.

It has been rightly pointed out in the judgment that the registration of FIR and the arrest of the accused person by police officers are entirely different concepts. The fear that merely because FIR has been registered, the accused would be arrested does not hold true and that the accused has safeguards against arbitrary arrests such as applying for an Anticipatory Bail have also been dealt with in the judgment. Hence, the judgment rightly justifies the mandatory duty on the part of police officers to register FIR in case of cognizable offences.

---

References:

[1] 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335

[2] (2011) 4 SCC 266

[3] (2007) 6 SCC 171

[4] (1973) 1 SCC 216

[5] (1975) 2 SCC 482

[6] (1997) 8 SCC 476