_edited_edited.jpg)
Case Name - Lalita Kumari v. the State of Uttar Pradesh
Case Citation - (2014) 2 SCC 1-A
(Criminal writ petition no 68 of 2008, decided on November 12, 2013)
Relevant Acts and Sections -
Parties Involved -
Appellant - Budhadev Karmaskar
Petitioner - State of West Bengal
Bench -
P Sathasivam, B.S Chauhan
Ranjana Prakash Desai
Ranjan Gogoi
S.A. Bobde
(The matter was first heard by a two-judge bench of Supreme Court and was later referred to the five-judge bench to answer the substantial question of law.)
Facts of the case -
Lalita Kumari on 5th May 2008 went out of her house at 9 p.m. She was about 6 years and was the daughter of Bhola Kamath. When she did not return for half an hour he started looking for her. But he was not successful and filed a missing report at the police station, Loni, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The officials did not take any action.
After this Bhola Kamath wrote to the Superintendent of Police informing the same. On the directions of SP, the officials of the Ghaziabad Police station registered the F.I.R. But even after that, the police did not take proper action to find Lalita Kumari. Aggrieved by this, Bhola Kamath ultimately writ petition of Habeas Corpus in the Supreme Court.
Issue of the case -
Whether the police officer is bound to register an F.I.R after receiving information of a cognizable offense?
Whether the police officials can conduct a preliminary inquiry to confirm the information relating to the offense before registering an F.I.R?
Arguments of the Petitioner -
They argued that whenever information of any cognizable offense is reported to the S.H.O of a police station he has no option other than registering the F.I.R. The use of the expression ‘shall’ in Section 154 of CrPC indicates the same.
They placed reliance on the case of Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors where the court observed that “whenever cognizable offence is disclosed the police officials are bound to register the same and in case it is not done, directions to register the same can be given.”
Arguments of the Respondents -
The main contentions by the respondents were that the police officer is not bound to register the FIR if he has certain doubts about the information received. They contended that a preliminary inquiry must be conducted by the officials before registering the FIR.
The respondents in their argument referred to the case of H.N Rishbud (supra) where it was held that “the information so received, the officer has reason to suspect the commission of an offence, he/she or any sub-ordinate can proceed to the spot and ascertain the facts and circumstances of the case and if necessary to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender.”
Judgment of the Case -
The Hon’ble court held that :
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 offense.
In such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offense 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 offense has been committed.
However, if the information is given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offense, 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 whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offense. 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.”
Important observations by the court -
Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offense and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering an offense if the cognizable offense is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offense.
References -
Related Case Laws -
For a more simple understanding, refer to the article " Can Police Refuse To Take Your FIR? " by clicking the button below.