Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.
Image source - https://bit.ly/3b9eCG0

This article has been written by Jay Vyas and has been further updated by Syed Owais Khadri. This article provides a comprehensive study of the ruling rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. It delves into the facts, arguments and the judgement and its reasoning in detail. It also sheds light upon the point of law involved in the case. Additionally, the article also attempts to provide a detailed analysis of the judgement.

Introduction

On 13th November 2013, a five Judge bench of the Hon’ble  Supreme Court of India passed a landmark judgement which is cited even today amid the Rafale case. The Apex Court in this judgement ruled that a police officer must mandatorily register an FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as CrPC) if the information received discloses the commission of any cognizable offence.

The author discusses the ruling of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2013) in a detailed manner. The article begins with a brief note of the facts of the case, followed by the pertinent issues that were adjudicated upon in the ruling. It then sheds light on the important legal provisions that are discussed in the case and proceeds with understanding the contentions from both sides. This is followed by briefly looking into the judgement and the ratio decidendi of the ruling. The article concludes by touching upon the likely consequences of an FIR registration against a citizen and the social stigma attached to it, which poses a major concern.

Download Now

Details of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P

The following are some of the important details of the case discussed in this article- 

  • Case Name – Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh and others.
  • Case No. – W.P 68/2008
  • Equivalent Citations – AIR 2014 SC 187, (2014) 2 SCC 1
  • Court – Supreme Court of India
  • Bench – Justices P Sathasivam (C.J), B.S. Chauhan, Ranjana Prakash Desai, Ranjan Gogoi, S.A. Bobde.
  • Judgement Date – 12th Nov 2013

Facts of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P

  • In the instant case, Ms. Lalita Kumari, a minor, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, with the Supreme Court of India, through her father, Bhola Kamat. In the current case, the petitioner asked the Hon’ble Apex Court to grant a writ of habeas corpus, directing the police to find, produce, and protect the minor child who was kidnapped.
  • The petition stated that the police did not take any action when the petitioner approached the concerned police station by submitting a written complaint on 11th May 2008. It further stated that the FIR was only registered after moving the complaint to the Superintendent of Police but no further action was taken after registration of FIR to locate the minor girl child or to apprehend the accused in the case.
  • Following the admission of the instant petition, a two-judge Supreme Court bench issued notices to the relevant authorities directing them to approach the concerned magistrates for the issuance of appropriate directives to the police, asking them to file a formal complaint and begin an investigation if they refuse to do so right away and provide the complainants with a copy of the file. The Court stated that if the police officers disobeyed the orders, contempt charges would be brought against them.
  • In furtherance of the above directions in the case, upon hearing arguments from both sides, the two-judge bench of the Apex Court referred the case to a larger bench due to the inconsistent rulings made on the current issue over multiple judgements.
  • The three-judge bench, upon hearing the arguments from the petitioners as well as the respondents, noted the divergent rulings in numerous cases and held that it would be appropriate to refer the case to a five-judge Constitution bench for laying down a clear law on this issue to avoid contradicting opinions.
  • Therefore, the instant petition is before a five-judge Constitution bench for consideration of the issue of registration of FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issues

  1. Whether the victim’s or complainant’s entitlement to a speedy investigation of their complaint following allegations, can be compromised by the police’s potential for manipulation as a result of the refusal to immediately register an FIR?
  2. Whether the police officer should mandatorily register an FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to a Cognizable offence or the police officer, to check the authenticity of the complaint and conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR?
  3. Whether obligatory registration of FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 without preliminary inquiry violate the right to life of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution?

Laws involved in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

  • Section 154 – Provides for the procedure to be followed or steps to be taken by a police officer on receipt of any information disclosing the commission of any cognizable offence. Section 154(1) provides for registration of FIR and the remaining portion of the Section lays down the procedure in which the registration must take place. Section 154(3) provides a remedy if any police officer refuses to register an FIR under sub-section (1). Such a person under this subsection can forward such information to the concerned Superintendent of Police. Some of the important mandates that are to be followed according to this provision include the following.
    • Reading out the information that has been reduced to writing to the person providing it. 
    • Signature of the informant on the information reduced in writing (FIR) or written complaint. 
    • Recording of information of offences relating to sexual offences by a woman officer. 
    • A copy of the FIR (recorded information) shall be given to the informant.
  • Section 156 – Sub-section (1) empowers the police to investigate any case relating to the cognizable offence even without any order from the magistrate whereas sub-section (3) provides for such investigation by the order of a magistrate.
  • Section 157 – It lays down the procedure for investigation by police empowered under Section 156. This section mandates the reporting to the magistrate whenever any police officer suspects the commission of any offence which such officer is empowered to investigate under the previous Section. It also requires the police officer to go in person or direct any subordinate to go to the crime spot for investigation.

The proviso exempts the requisite of going to the crime spot when the case is not of a serious nature. The second proviso bars entering into an investigation if there is no sufficient ground to investigate. The police officer must nevertheless state reasons in the report in case of both the instances provided in the proviso.

  • Section 159 – The discretion to conduct an investigation or a preliminary inquiry is only given to the Magistrate under this provision. According to this provision, after a report is submitted to the Magistrate under Section 157 of the Code, he may order an investigation or if he thinks fit, he may direct a Magistrate subordinate to him to hold a preliminary inquiry. However, it is important to note that, this discretion, which is available to the Magistrate is also after the registration of FIR. 

FIR under CrPC

FIR refers to the First Information Report that is registered by a police officer upon receiving a complaint. It can be understood as a formal written complaint for the initiation of the investigation. The Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, in State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Singh (1960) described FIR as “the first information report is nothing but the statement of the maker of the report at a Police Station before a Police officer recorded in the manner provided by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.”

Although the term FIR is used widely in this case or as a general notion for any formal written complaint, it is important to note that the term FIR has not been defined in any of the provisions of CrPC. It has neither been used nor mentioned in any provisions of CrPC except in Section 207 of the Code. Section 207 provides for the supply of a copy of the police report or other legal documents to the accused. The magistrate according to Section 207 has to furnish certain documents to the accused without any delay. These documents include the ‘First Information Report’ recorded under Section 154 of CrPC.

Section 154 of CrPC does not expressly mention or use the term ‘FIR’. It instead uses the term “information reduced in writing”. This written information is addressed as the First Information Report (which is generally abbreviated as FIR) under Section 207 of the Code (CrPC).

Therefore, FIR under CrPC can be understood as the information that has been reduced in writing by the officer in charge of a police station under Section 154 of the Code, after receiving information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence.

Constitution of India, 1950 

A few of the important Constitutional provisions that were dealt with in this case include the following – 

  • Article 21 – Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty as a fundamental right to every individual. It states that an individual can be deprived of his/her personal liberty only according to the procedural established by the law and not otherwise
    • Article 21 of the Constitution was under discussion since it was contended that the mandatory registration of FIRs under Section 154 of CrPC without any preliminary inquiry by the police would result in arbitrary arrests and therefore violate the right to life.
  • Article 32 – Guarantees the fundamental right to approach the Hon’ble Supreme  Court by filing a writ petition for the enforcement of other fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.

Indian Penal Code, 1860

  • Section 166-A – It provides for the punishment for disobedience of direction under the law by a public servant. It prescribes a punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a term extending from 6 months to 2 years. Clause (c) of this provision considers the failure to record information disclosing the commission of sexual offences under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 under Section 154(1) of CrPC as disobedience of direction under law.

Arguments/ contentions of the parties

Petitioner

  • Petitioner’s counsel argued that Section 154(1) of CrPC requires the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) and does not allow for optional filing because the word “shall”, in the text of the provision, indicates the legislators’ intention. Therefore, he contended that police officers have no discretion other than to file a formal complaint (FIR) after receiving information disclosing the commission of any offence.
  • The Counsel for Petitioner relied upon B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal (2011) in which the Court observed that the literal rule of interpretation is the first and foremost principle of interpretation of statutes and other principles of interpretation can only resort when the literal meaning of the words is ambiguous and similar observations were made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hiralal Rattanlal v. State of U.P. (1972) and Govindlal Chhaganlal Patel v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Godhra (1972) to support his contentions.
  • The Petitioner also argued that the police officer need not necessarily get into the reasonableness or credibility of the information to register an FIR. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the language of the provision by the words ‘Every information’ and the absence of prefixes such as ‘reasonable’ or ‘credible’ in Section 154(1) clearly reflects that it is obligatory to register an FIR and any kind of preliminary inquiry was not a requisite to determine the reasonableness or credibility of the information received before registering an FIR. 
  • The Counsel supported the preceding contention by relying upon various decisions such as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court had ruled that a police officer cannot refuse to register an FIR under Section 154(1) of CrPC because the information is not reliable or credible as the officer is statutorily obliged to register an FIR and proceed with the investigation under Section 156 and as per Section 157 of CrPC.
  • The counsel further quoted Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1979) where the Court had made similar observations that a police officer is required to enter the information received concerning the commission of any cognizable offence in the book in the prescribed form. Furthermore, the Counsel also quoted Lallan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (2006) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court had made observations on a similar note.

Moreover, The counsel for the petitioner also pointed out the likely adverse effects of allowing the police to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR or of leaving scope for discretion.

Respondents

There were various arguments put forth by counsels for different respondents, most of them directed more or less towards a similar opinion. The contentions made by the respondents are as follows.

Union of India

  • The Union of India’s counsel acknowledged that if any information reveals the commission of a crime that is punishable, the police officer has no discretion to verify the accuracy of such information before registering an FIR. The Counsel went on to state that if an officer receives any cryptic information, rumours, or source information, they must visit the location as per Sections 156 and 157 to obtain information about the commission of a cognizable offence, they must then submit a report to the police station right away to file a formal complaint.
  • The counsel relied upon the rulings of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumari v. State (N.C.T of Delhi) (2006), wherein it was held that the provision of Section 154 is mandatory and hence the police officer is duty-bound to register an FIR and Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India (2007), wherein the Court had made similar observations, to support his contentions.

CBI

  • The counsel for CBI completely agreed with the contention of the petitioner upon the presence of the word ’shall’ in Section 154(1) of CrPC and the nature of the provision. The counsel clarified that the information received must reveal the commission of a cognizable offence and that is the only requirement in the clause mentioned above. 
  • He added that in some situations, the preliminary inquiry carried out by the CBI is of a different nature as per the provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.

State of West Bengal and State of Rajasthan

  • The counsel for the State of West Bengal and Rajasthan agreed with the contention of mandatory registration of FIR under Section 154(1) of CrPC. The counsel for the state of Rajasthan further pointed out that the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1991 are an exception to the mandate as a sanction is necessary in such cases to prevent harassment of public servants by the filing of false cases. 

State of Chattisgarh

  • The counsel of Chattisgarh brought to the notice of the court, the decisions of both instances where the court held that the police have discretionary power to conduct a preliminary inquiry before the registration of FIR and vice versa. He contended that every activity occurring at the police station is recorded in the General Diary or Police Diary and Preliminary inquiry should be permissible before registration of FIR to avoid misuse of process.

State of Uttar Pradesh

  • The counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh initially argued that preliminary inquiry is desirable before the registration of FIR to check unnecessary harassment of innocents but later agreed that the registration of FIR must not be deferred if any information discloses the commission of any cognizable offence. 
  • However, the Counsel concluded that it is not legally permissible to conduct a preliminary inquiry before the registration of FIR when the language of the provision is unambiguous and clear.

State of Maharashtra

  • The counsel for Maharashtra contended that immediate registration of FIR upon obtaining the information that discloses the commission of any cognizable offence should be a norm but not a mandate. 
  • The counsel argued that the police officer must ordinarily register an FIR immediately upon the receipt of information but the police officer in certain cases in which the credibility or correctness of information is in doubt, should have the choice to hold a preliminary inquiry. 
  • The counsel contended that this would provide a harmonious interpretation for two extreme conditions. The counsel also contended that the mandatory registration of FIR is contrary to the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution.
  • The counsel contended that according to the changes brought by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, specifically the insertion of Section 166-A into the Indian Penal Code, 1860 indicates that the registration of FIR is mandatory only in the cases of offences provided under the provision mentioned above. 
  • Therefore, the Counsel contended that it is the legislative intent of the lawmakers that concerning cognizable offences other than those mentioned in Section 166-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the police have the discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry prior to the registration of FIR.

Also, for the receipt and recording of information, the report is not a condition precedent to the setting in motion of a criminal investigation. The counsel explained that a provision for preliminary inquiry already exists in cases like Corruption, Medical Negligence and Matrimonial Offences. 

The counsel submitted to the court that every statute should be interpreted while keeping in mind the provisions of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution which protects an innocent person from baseless charges. In situations like these, a police officer needs to be equipped with the power of conducting a Preliminary inquiry. 

Judgement in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of CrPC and no preliminary inquiry is permissible if the information received discloses the commission of any cognizable offence. The court ruled that no police officer can abstain from the duty of registering an FIR if the commission of any cognizable offence is disclosed in the information. The court further directed that the police officer abstaining from his duty should be subjected to appropriate action. 

Moreover, the Court noted that in certain situations when the information obtained does not reveal the commission of a cognizable violation, but suggests the need for an investigation, a preliminary inquiry may be carried out simply to determine whether any cognizable offence has been committed. The Court further ruled that an inquiry resulting in the disclosure of a cognizable offence should be followed by registration of FIR and any inquiry resulting in the closure of a complaint should be supplied, along with a copy of entry disclosing the reasons in brief for the closure of complaint, to the complainant immediately (maximum within a week and not beyond that). The Court clarified that the purpose of an inquiry is merely to ascertain whether any cognizable offence has been committed or not but not to check the veracity of the information.

The Court also mentioned the nature of cases in which a preliminary inquiry can be conducted depending upon the facts and circumstances. Some of the categories or illustrations of cases mentioned by the court include Matrimonial or family disputes, cases of medical negligence, cases of corruption, commercial offences, or cases with abnormal delay in reporting of cases without any justifiable explanation, etc.

A specified time limit for the preliminary inquiry to ensure the protection of the rights of the accused as well as the complainant was laid down by the Court. The court noted that the time period for preliminary inquiry should not exceed 7 days and reasons for such delay should be recorded in the general diary.

The Court concluded by ruling that the actions of the police and information relating to the cognizable offence in all of the above instances should be recorded in the general diary with every specific detail.

Ratio decidendi

The Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding upon the mandate of registration of FIR, looked into the previous procedural codes or legislations and noted that the intent of the legislature has been clear even in the previous codes, that the registration of FIR has to be a compulsory procedure if the commission of any cognizable offence is disclosed in the information. The Court also ruled that Section 154(1) has to be construed by applying the literal rule of interpretation since the provision is unambiguous and clear. Therefore, the Court held that Section 154(1) has to be construed in its literal sense. The Court in this regard also stressed upon the presence of the word ‘shall’ in the provision ruling that its presence clearly reflects the legislative intent that it is obligatory to register FIR if the information received discloses the commission of any cognizable offence.

The Court further noted that Section 154(1) uses the expression ‘information’ unlike Section 41 which uses expressions such as ‘credible information’ or ‘reasonable complaint’. Therefore, the Court held that the absence of prefixes such as ‘reasonable’ or ‘credible’  in Section 154(1) denotes that the police officer need not necessarily get into the rationality or accuracy of the information received while registering the FIR and hence cannot refuse for registration of FIR on those grounds.

Moreover, the Court ruled that conducting an investigation after registration of FIR under Section 154(1) of CrPC is the “procedure established by law” and hence is in accordance with Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court noted that if the FIR is filed first and the inquiry is carried out in compliance with the law, the accused’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution are safeguarded.

The Court observed that the mandatory registration of FIR ensures judicial oversight as Section 157 (1) mandates immediate reporting to the magistrate whenever the police officer suspects the commission of any offence which the officer is empowered to investigate. Therefore, a police officer is required to inform the magistrate by submitting a report, immediately after the registration of FIR under Section 154(1) either by receipt of information or otherwise about the commission of any cognizable offence. This ensures that the investigation after the registration of FIR is monitored or is under the oversight of a judicial officer.

Additionally, the Hon’ble Apex Court noted that the mandatory registration of FIR comes with certain inherent advantages which are the following.

  • Access to justice for a victim
  • Upholds rule of law
  • Facilitates prompt investigation and prevention of crime
  • Ensures less manipulation in criminal cases and reduces the incidents of deliberately delayed FIR

Precedents referred

While deciding the case, The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to notable observations made in various precedents relevant to the issues or questions of law involved in this case. Some of the important precedents that were noted by the Hon’ble Court in this judgement include the following.

The Court, while discussing the significance of legislative intent, noted the observations made by itself in the cases of B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal (2011) and Hiralal Rattanlal v. State of U.P. (1972) where the court held that “When the legislative intent is clear and provision is unambiguous, no aid of other rules of interpretation is necessary. The other rules of interpretation are taken into consideration only when the legislative intent is not clear and when the plain words of a statute are ambiguous. When the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, recourse cannot be had to the principle of interpretation other than the literal rule.”

Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while stressing the significance of the use of the word “shall” referred to the observations made in the ruling of Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan (1966) where the Court had observed that the word “shall” ordinarily means mandatory and the Courts should interpret it in the same manner, unless such interpretation leads to any absurd or inappropriate consequence or such interpretation leads to diversion from the legislative intent.

Besides, the Hon’ble Court referred to the landmark ruling delivered in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) where the Court had held that the police officer cannot go ahead with an inquiry to ascertain whether the information provided by the informant is reliable and genuine or not and refuse to register an FIR on the grounds of credibility or non-reliability. The Court further referred to the ruling in Lallan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (2006) where the Court had held that the provision under Section 154 of CrPC imposes a statutory obligation upon a police officer to register an FIR. The Court also referred to the judgement of Ramesh Kumari v. State (N.C.T of Delhi) (2006) where the Court had made a similar observation.

The Court also referred to the ruling made in the case of Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India (2007), where the Court had held that police officers are supposed to register an FIR if the information communicated to them discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.

Furthermore, the Court also referred to various other rulings such as Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar (1997), CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh (2003), Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (2006), King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed (1944) etc, and many more.

Exceptions

Although the Court ruled that the registration of FIR under Section 154(1) is a mandatory procedure that has to be followed by the police officer upon the receipt of any information disclosing the commission of any cognizable offences, it also noted that there are certain instances where a preliminary enquiry might be necessary. Some of the exceptions to the ruling of mandatory registration of FIR are as follows.

  • Medical Negligence
  • Matrimonial Cases
  • Corruption cases
  • Commercial offences
  • Cases of abnormal delay in reporting

The Court clarified that the list mentioned above is not an exhaustive one, but only provides an illustration of the nature of cases in which a preliminary enquiry may be conducted.

Analysis of the judgement in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P

The Hon’ble Apex Court through this judgment signified two main aspects of the mandatory registration of FIR. The first is the maintenance of records and the official assurance that the criminal procedure is initiated. The second aspect is that the Court stressed upon the significance of mandatory registration of FIR in preventing any kind of embellishment or any tampering of FIR. The Court noted that the immediate registration of FIR on the receipt of the information would ensure both objectives are served. The Court further noted that this process falls well within the procedure established by law under Article 21 of the Constitution and therefore doesn’t result in a violation of the right to life and personal liberty under the said provision. Instead, the Court opined that this process would protect the right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

One of the other important observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in this case, was in respect of the rules of interpretation. The Hon’ble Court reiterated that the literal rule of interpretation primary rule that must be resorted to interpret any provision. The Court clarified that the usage of any other rule of interpretation is not necessary when any provision can be interpreted in its literal sense or plain meaning. The Court while reiterating the application of the literal rule, applied the rule for interpreting terms like information and held that the word should be construed in its plain meaning and hence it is not necessary to get into the credibility or reasonableness of the information for registration of an FIR if the information discloses commission of any cognizable offence. The Court, in this case, adopted the theory of textualism according to which the words are interpreted in their ordinary meaning. This theory of textualism also helps the general public understand the judgements of the Court more easily.

The Court, in this case, has emphasized the necessity of considering the legislative intent behind the framing of any provision. The Court looked into the historical background of the provision and referred to the previous provisions dealing with the registration of FIR or information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence in the previous Criminal Procedure Codes and noted that the legislative intent of the lawmakers has been towards the compulsory registration of FIR without any preliminary inquiry, both in the old codes as well as the new one.

The Court, rather than merely looking into the text of the provision or merely interpreting it, focused mainly on the intention of the legislature to frame a provision in a particular manner. The Court noted that the legislative intent behind Section 154 of CrPC was to mandate the registration of FIR for every information that disclosed the commission of cognizable offence without getting into the credibility and reasonableness of the information. The consideration of legislative intent is of paramount importance as it assists in interpreting the provisions in a fashion which the legislators intended. It serves a great role in accomplishing the aims and objectives of a statute particularly for which it was formulated by the legislature.

The Court’s ruling in this case is also in consonance with the recommendation of the Justice. V.S. Malimath Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, which had observed that the officer in charge of a police station, according to Section 154 of CrPC, is mandated to register every oral or written information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. The Committee further observed that the non-registration of an FIR by any officer is a serious complaint against the police.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case has attempted to limit the excessive discretionary power of the police. The Court has ensured the protection of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution that protects the individual from arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of discretionary power.

Critique of the judgement

Although the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is now the precedent that has to be followed and the judgement has an overruling effect on the other earlier judgements where the rulings are contradictory, it is crucial to have a look at the earlier judgements relating to the registration of FIR to have a better understanding of the concept. Some of the notable rulings on this subject are as follows.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in this case, ruled in contrast to the jurisprudence laid down in its previous notable judgments. In Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra (1967), the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified and distinguished the powers of the police officers and the judiciary. The Court noted the duties of the police, in the matter of investigation of offences, as well as their powers. The Apex Court referred to the provisions contained in Chapter XIV of the Code- Section 154 to Section 176 and observed that there is no role of the judiciary in any of the aforementioned Sections. These provisions lay down guidelines to the police on how to proceed with the investigation, but there always remains an authority with the police officer to conduct a preliminary inquiry in case a complaint does not disclose a Cognizable offence.

In Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (1996), the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically stated that an officer in charge of the police station cannot be expected to register an FIR on receiving information which does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The court observed that it should be open to the officer-in-charge to conduct an inquiry to collect information to ascertain whether a cognizable offence has been committed.  

In Sevi v. State of Tamil Nadu (1981), the court had expressly ruled that before registering the FIR under section 154 of CrPC, it is open to the Station House Officer (SHO) to hold a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case of commission of a cognizable offence or not. 

Lastly, the Bombay High Court in the case of Kalpana Kutty v. State of Maharashtra (2007), has laid down general principles governing preliminary inquiry which can be followed by the police officers-

  1. When information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is received by an officer in charge of a police station, he would normally register a FIhR as required by section 154(1) of the code.
  2. If the information received indicates the necessity for further inquiry, preliminary inquiry may be conducted.
  3. Where the source of information is of doubtful reliability i.e. an anonymous complaint, the officer in charge of the police station may conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain the correctness of the information.
  4. Preliminary inquiry must be expeditious and as far as possible it must be discreet.
  5. Preliminary inquiry is not restarted only to cases where the accused are public servants or doctors or professionals holding top positions. In which case preliminary inquiry is necessary will depend on facts and circumstances of each case.”

Malefits of FIR on the accused

While understanding the advantages, legal facets or significance of mandatory registration of FIR and agreeing to the fact that such a mandatory registration is necessary, it is also important to look into the concerns that have been disregarded in the judgement. One of the major concerns associated with the mandatory registration of FIR is the social or psychological impact of the FIR on the accused. 

The consequences of a criminal case on the accused have far-reaching consequences. Irrespective of whether the accused has committed the offence or not, he is subjected to psychological anxiety, social stigma and probable economic impairment till proven innocent. Even though he is innocent, the delay shakes his confidence in the system of criminal justice and makes him cynical.

In Moti Ram v. State of M.P. (1978), Justice Krishna Iyer opined that there are grave consequences of pre-trial detention. He observed that the psychological and physical deprivation that comes along with being in jail, even though he is presumed to be innocent, is worse than that of a convicted accused. He noted that an accused loses his job if he has one and is prevented from contributing to preparing his defence. Moreover, the burden of his detention frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his family. 

In the case of the State Of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Nazrul Islam (2011), the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that any person facing or convicted of a criminal offence, cannot be considered suitable for a government appointment. To be considered eligible, a person should either have no charges pending against them or have been acquitted of these charges by the court. However, this acquittal must not be out of a compromise between the accused and the victim, or due to the witnesses in the case turning hostile.

Under Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967, the passport authority can refuse a foreign visa to any applicant if-

  • In the preceding 5 years, they have been convicted of an offence of moral turpitude and been sentenced to more than two years’ imprisonment.
  • Criminal proceedings are pending against them in India.
  • A summons to the court, warrant for arrest or order prohibiting departure from India has been issued against them.

The existence of a large number of undertrial prisoners is a concerning issue for India. In several cases, the time spent by the accused in jail before the commencement of trial exceeds the maximum punishment which can be awarded to them if found guilty of the offences charged against them, since the trials often do not commence for a period of 3 to four years. The mental torture and anxiety suffered by an accused for a long period of time is to be treated as sufficient punishment inflicted on him. Owing to the prolonged pendency of a case, individuals may suffer in various ways. In several cases, the accused is the head of a family and is the sole breadwinner, and holds responsibility towards the family left behind. It is not only the accused, but also the other members of his family who suffer because of delays in the trial. They would also suffer due to the social stigma attached to the arrest, during the trial and also from the loss of income during this period. They are likely to be compelled to borrow money to run the family and also to defend the accused. 

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) had released a report titled ‘Prison Statistics India 2015’ which stated that the overcrowding of prisons is the biggest problem the prisoners have to face. The occupancy rate of these prisons was at an all-India level of 114.4%. This subjects the prisoners to issues such as lack of sanitation and hygiene and lack of sleep. This goes against the human rights of the prisoners. Another disturbing fact that the report highlights is that 67% of people in prisons are under trial i.e. people who are not convicted of any crime and are facing trial in a court of law. On average, every day, four people die in prison. 

Another report by the Delhi Government’s Central Jail revealed that the occupancy in the year 2019 has increased to 174.89%. If we break down this figure, a minimum of 82.02% of people are under-trial. Since it has been established that the consequences of an FIR have serious consequences on the accused, the mandatory registration of FIR can be seen as a drawback in certain instances, but as it has been noted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the instant case and in other cases, the police may be given the liberty to conduct an inquiry to collect more information to ascertain if any cognizable offence  has been committed if the complaint received does not prima facie disclose commission of such offence.

Hence, while discussing the legal significance of FIR, it is essential to take into consideration the other aspects or impacts of FIR on the accused and his life. The probability of misuse of power against an individual who might be falsely implicated in an FIR cannot be ignored, especially when a good number of the country’s population lacks legal awareness. Therefore, it is important to note the concerns associated with the mandatory registration of  FIR as well.

Conclusion

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the instant case, rendered a landmark ruling concerning the procedural law in criminal cases. The ruling is of great significance in ensuring access to justice, and in preventing delay or manipulation in registration of FIRs. The Court through this judgement ensured that the informant’s or victim’s rights as well as the rights of the accused are protected by the mandatory registration of FIR, which was previously not guaranteed. The ruling ensures that there is a check upon the police officer and there is the least misuse of power by the police officials. This ruling is of great significance when it comes to the protection of human rights, both the accused’s as well as the victim’s rights. The immediate mandatory registration of FIR leaves zero scope for any tampering with the FIR or any kind of embellishment. It also provides an assurance to the victim, of swift action for the victim’s concern or complaint.

Nevertheless, a delicate balance between the interest of the society and protection of individual liberties has to be maintained. Criminal procedural law must embody principles of natural justice, and the constitutional guarantees must be safeguarded. A balance has to be struck between speedy trial and fair trial, while not compromising the principles of natural justice. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is an FIR?

FIR or the First Information Report refers to a formal written complaint noted in a prescribed format, by the officer in charge of a police station after such officer receives any information relating to the commission of any cognizable offence.

What is the difference between a complaint and an FIR?

A complaint refers to any written or oral information given to a police officer regarding the commission of any offence, whereas FIR refers to a formal legal written document that is recorded by the officer in charge of a police station on the receipt of any information relating to the commission of any cognizable offence.

What is the difference between a General diary and an FIR?

FIR refers to a formal legal written document that is recorded by the officer-in-charge of a police station upon receiving any information relating to the commission of any cognizable offence, whereas a General diary is a book or diary that contains information or record of all the activities or incidents that take place in a police station on an everyday basis.

Which provision of CrPC mandates the registration of FIR?

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case (Lalita Kumari v. Govt of UP) ruled that Section 154(1) of the CrPC mandates a police officer to register an FIR if any information received by or conveyed to such officer discloses the commission of any cognizable offence.

What remedy is available if a police officer refuses to register an FIR?

If any police officer refuses to register an FIR under Section 154(1) of CrPC, then a remedy is available for the informant/victim under Section 154(3) of the Code.

According to Section 154(3), any person aggrieved by the refusal by the officer-in-charge of any police station to register an FIR under Section 154(1) may send such information in a written format and by post to the concerned Superintendent of Police who shall either order an investigation to be conducted by any police officer subordinate to him or shall investigate the matter by himself if the information provided discloses commission of any cognizable offence.

Besides, the aggrieved person can also approach the magistrate by filing a Complaint under Section 200 of CrPC, who is empowered under Section 190, to order an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code

What are the rights of an Informant under Section 154 of CrPC?

Section 154 lays down the procedure relating to the registration of an FIR and in due course, also gives rise to certain statutory rights of the informant which are as follows.

  • Right to receive a copy of the FIR free of cost.
  • Right to approach the Superintendent of Police on the refusal by the officer-in-charge of the police station to register an FIR.

References

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here