Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an agriculturist, claimed ownership and possession of agricultural land in Naribole village, Kalaburagi district. A dispute arose when one Sharanappa and thirteen others allegedly trespassed onto the land on 28.12.2016, threatened the petitioner and his family with lethal weapons, harvested the standing crops using a harvesting machine, and took away the yield. The petitioner lodged a complaint with the Sub Inspector of Police, Jewargi (Respondent No.4), but the police refused to register an FIR. The petitioner had earlier obtained a favourable order from the Assistant Commissioner restoring his name in the Record of Rights and a direction from the Tahasildar for police protection. Despite this, the police remained inactive. The petitioner then approached various authorities including the Deputy Commissioner, Superintendent of Police, Human Rights Commission, and the Chief Minister's office, all of whom issued directions to register the FIR. Still, no action was taken, compelling the petitioner to file a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the registration of the FIR. The petitioner contended that the non-registration of the FIR violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and that the police officer's conduct amounted to dereliction of duty. The respondent argued that the petitioner did not cooperate and that alternative remedies were available under Sections 154(3) and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Additional State Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that it was the mandatory duty of the Station House Officer under Section 154 CrPC to register the FIR and that the refusal was unjustified. The court considered whether a writ of mandamus should be issued and whether the availability of alternative remedies barred the writ. After examining the facts, the court held that Section 154 CrPC is mandatory and leaves no discretion with the police officer if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence. The failure to register the FIR violated the petitioner's fundamental rights and undermined the rule of law. The court further held that the existence of alternative remedies under the CrPC does not oust the High Court's writ jurisdiction, especially when there is clear dereliction of duty. The court found no justification for the police officer's inaction despite repeated directions from higher authorities. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. A writ of mandamus was issued directing Respondent No.4 to register the FIR on the basis of the complaint dated 28.12.2016 if it disclosed a cognizable offence, and to complete the investigation within three months. Additionally, an enquiry was ordered against the erring police officer for dereliction of duty, to be completed within three months, and a report was directed to be submitted to the Court.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Non-registration of FIR violates Articles 14 and 21 - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 14 and 21 - The police officer's refusal to register an FIR on a complaint disclosing a cognizable offence infringes the petitioner's right to equality and right to life. Held that such inaction is unconstitutional and undermines the rule of law (Paras 14, 18). B) Criminal Procedure - Registration of FIR - Mandatory duty under Section 154 CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 154 - Section 154 imposes a mandatory duty on the Station House Officer to register an FIR when the information received discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Held that the fourth respondent had no discretion to refuse registration and was not justified in doing so (Paras 16, 18). C) Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedies - Availability of alternative remedies does not bar writ of mandamus - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 154(3) and 200 - The respondent argued that the petitioner could approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) or the Magistrate under Section 200 CrPC. Held that despite these remedies, the High Court can exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when there is clear dereliction of duty by police, as in this case (Paras 15, 18). D) Police Law - Dereliction of Duty - Officer liable for enquiry for failure to register FIR despite directions - The police officer failed to register the FIR despite repeated directions from the Taluka Magistrate, District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, Human Rights Commission, and the Chief Minister's office. Held that such conduct amounts to dereliction of duty and ordered an enquiry against the officer (Paras 14, 18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the police to register an FIR when the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence and despite directions from higher authorities, the FIR was not registered? Whether alternative remedies under Sections 154(3) and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, preclude the court from exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. A writ of mandamus was issued directing Respondent No.4 (Sub Inspector of Police, Jewargi) to register the FIR on the basis of the complaint dated 28.12.2016 if it disclosed a cognizable offence, and to complete the investigation within three months from the date of the order. Additionally, an enquiry was ordered against Respondent No.4 for dereliction of duty, to be completed within three months, and a report was directed to be submitted to the Court.
Law Points
- Mandatory duty of police to register FIR under Section 154 CrPC if complaint discloses cognizable offence
- non-registration violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
- writ of mandamus maintainable despite alternative remedies under CrPC
