Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Arti Sharma, filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Nagpur seeking a direction to the police authorities to register a First Information Report (FIR) based on her complaint dated 5 October 2014. The complaint alleged that respondent nos. 5 and 6, who are her brother and sister-in-law, had committed offences including criminal trespass, house-trespass, lurking house-trespass, criminal intimidation, theft, and giving false evidence, punishable under Sections 448, 451, 453, 506, 380 and 193 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner claimed that despite lodging the complaint with respondent no. 4 (Police Station Officer, Pratapnagar), no action was taken, and she was compelled to make representations to respondent nos. 2 and 3 (Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police). The petitioner also sought punishment of respondent nos. 2 to 4 for contempt of court for willful breach of the directions of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., which mandates registration of FIR upon disclosure of a cognizable offence. The State respondents filed an affidavit-in-reply stating that the representation was acted upon and an inquiry was conducted, but no cognizable offence was made out. However, the court perused the complaint and found that it disclosed cognizable offences. The court held that the police are duty-bound to register an FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) upon receipt of such information, as per the law laid down in Lalita Kumari. The court directed respondent no. 4 to register the FIR and investigate the matter in accordance with law. The court also clarified that the question of contempt of court was not pressed and was accordingly disposed of. The petition was disposed of with the above direction.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Registration of FIR - Section 154 CrPC - Duty of Police - The police are duty-bound to register an FIR under Section 154 CrPC upon receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence, as held by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. - The petitioner's complaint dated 5/10/2014 disclosed cognizable offences under Sections 448, 451, 453, 506, 380 and 193 r/w Section 34 IPC, and the police failed to register the FIR despite the complaint and subsequent representations - Held that the police must register the FIR and investigate the matter (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the police authorities are bound to register a First Information Report under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 upon receiving a complaint disclosing a cognizable offence, and whether failure to do so amounts to contempt of court in light of the directions in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P.
Final Decision
The court directed respondent no.4 (Police Station Officer, Pratapnagar) to register the FIR in respect of the complaint dated 5/10/2014 and investigate the matter in accordance with law. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- Duty of police to register FIR under Section 154 CrPC upon receipt of information disclosing cognizable offence
- Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. principle
- Mandatory registration of FIR for cognizable offences
- Contempt of court for non-compliance with legal duty
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (07) 223
Criminal Writ Petition No. 536 of 2016
P.N. Deshmukh, Pushpa V. Ganediwal
Shri G.L. Sharma, Shri R. Tajne for petitioner; Ms. T. Udeshi, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent nos.1 to 4; Ms. S.N. Maniyar for respondent nos.5 and 6
Smt. Arti w/o Girdharilal Sharma (Nee Arti d/o Madanlal Sharma)
State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Home Department; Commissioner of Police, Nagpur; Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-I, Sitabuldi, Nagpur; Police Station Officer, Police Station, Pratapnagar; Umesh s/o Madanlal Sharma; Dhanna allegedly w/o Umesh Sharma
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition seeking direction to police to register FIR and investigate complaint of cognizable offences.
Remedy Sought
Direction to respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 to initiate investigation by registering FIR under Section 154 CrPC for offences under Sections 448, 451, 453, 506, 380 and 193 r/w Section 34 IPC, and to punish them for contempt of court.
Filing Reason
Inaction by police in registering FIR despite complaint dated 5/10/2014 disclosing cognizable offences.
Issues
Whether the police authorities are bound to register an FIR under Section 154 CrPC upon receipt of a complaint disclosing a cognizable offence?
Whether failure to register such FIR amounts to contempt of court in light of the directions in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P.?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel submitted that despite filing a complaint on 5/10/2014, there was inaction by respondent no.4 in not registering the offences, and representations to respondent nos.2 and 3 also did not yield results.
State's affidavit-in-reply stated that the representation was acted upon and an inquiry was conducted, but no cognizable offence was made out.
Ratio Decidendi
The police are duty-bound to register an FIR under Section 154 CrPC upon receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence, as held by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. Failure to do so is a dereliction of duty, and the court can direct registration of FIR and investigation.
Judgment Excerpts
The prayer clauses (i) and (ii) in this petition read as under : (i) Issue appropriate writ, directing the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 to initiate investigation of cognizable offence alleged in complaint dated 5/10/2014 lodged by petitioner against the respondent nos.5 and 6 by registering First Information Report under Section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code for offences punishable under Sections 448, 451, 453, 506, 380 and 193 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
Perusal of the affidavitinreply of respondent State reveals that representation made to respondent nos.2 and 3 was duly acted upon and an inquiry was conducted, however, according to the State, no cognizable offence is made out.
In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct respondent no.4 to register the FIR in respect of the complaint dated 5/10/2014 and investigate the matter in accordance with law.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a complaint on 5/10/2014 with respondent no.4 police station. No FIR was registered. The petitioner made representations to respondent nos.2 and 3. The petitioner then filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 536 of 2016 before the Bombay High Court at Nagpur seeking directions. The court heard the matter and passed the judgment on 15 July 2019.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 154
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 448, 451, 453, 506, 380, 193, 34
