Long story short, AP HC says, if the Police do not register an FIR if information about a cognizable offence is reported, the remedies are as follows:
Chegireddy Venkata Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh on 30 Jul 2020The remedies are under Section 154(3), 156(3) and Section 190 r/w.Sec.200 of Cr.P.C.
Citations :
Other Sources :
A 2-page judgment here which cites this judgment can also be used for same purpose. Saves 24 pages !!!
Single-judge bench of AP HC held that, one cannot directly approach the High Court u/Article 226 of Constitution of India, if the Police do not register an FIR if information about a cognizable offence is reported relying on the case law from AP HC here.
Lingam Seetharammayya and Ors Vs State of AP and Ors on 16 Mar 2021The remedies are under Section 154(3), 156(3) and Section 190 r/w.Sec.200 of Cr.P.C.
Delhi High Court passed this order based on Lalita Kumari.
Kirti Vashisht Vs State and Ors on 29 Nov 201916. Learned APP has fairly conceded that as per the contents of the complaint, cognizable offence is made out. Thus, even on the first complaint made to Police Station, Najafgarh, the FIR was supposed to be registered. As per section 154 Cr.P.C., if any information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is received by any Police Station, the said Police Station is duty bound to register the FIR. However, if the crime is not occurred in the jurisdiction of the said Police Station, then after registering the ‘Zero FIR’, the same has to be transferred to the concerned Police Station for investigation, where the offence has been committed. However, neither this happened in the Police Station Najafgarh nor thereafter in Police Station Baba Hari Das Nagar and also nor in Police Station Kapashera as well.
17. It is not in dispute that the provision of ‘Zero FIR‟ came up as a recommendation in the Justice Verma Committee Report, in the new Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 after the heinous ‘Nirbhaya Case’ of December, 2012. The provision says: “A Zero FIR can be filed in any police station by the victim, irrespective of their residence or the place of occurrence of crime.”
18. It is also not in dispute that the practice of ‘Zero FIR‟ is prevalent throughout India from the last many years. Thus, the Police Station of Kapashera, Najafgarh and Baba Hari Das Nagar were also aware about the said practice but none of the Police Stations till date have registered the case on the complaint of respondent no.7 whereas admittedly, cognizable offence has been committed as per the complaint of respondent no.7. Thus, the complainant/respondent no.7 was compelled to run from pillar to post due to inaction of the Police Stations mentioned above.
Single-Judge bench held the importance of fair investigation by Investigating officer. And more importantly, advised as following, wrt sec 166A(b), which I elaborated here:
Robin Sharma Vs State of Punjab on 11 August 2020The complainant/victim of a crime may accordingly apply to the Judicial Magistrate, empowered to take cognizance of the offences in question on police report, for monitoring of investigation who can issue appropriate directions for expeditious completion of investigation. The complainant/ victim of a crime may also file complaint under section 166A (b) of the IPC against the Investigating Officer for knowingly disobeying, any direction of the law regulating the manner in which he shall conduct such investigation. In view of explanation to Section 197 (1) of the Cr.P.C. no sanction is required in case of a public servant accused of any offence alleged to have been committed under Section 166 A of the IPC. The complainant/victim of a crime may alternatively file petition in the High Court for transfer of investigation to an independent agency such as CBI etc.. However, it may be observed here that in substantial number of such cases the complainant/victim of a crime is not able to pursue these remedies due to lack of awareness and legal aid at the initial stages.
Justice Dipak Misra states that Magistrate has to be alive about the allegation brought to him via Non-cognizable case by Police.
From Paras 26 and 27,
26. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes
this route to harass their fellows citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same.27. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an the application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.
From Para 30,
Priyanka Srivastava and Anr Vs State of UP and Ors on 19 March, 201530. In the present case, we are obligated to say that learned Magistrate should have kept himself alive to the aforesaid provision before venturing into directing registration of the FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is because the Parliament in its wisdom has made such a provision to protect the secured creditors or any of its officers, and needles to emphasize, the legislative mandate, has to be kept in mind.
Citations: [AIR 2015 SC 1758], [2015 (3) RLW 2404 (SC)], [2015(3) PLJR 78(SC)], [2015 SCL SC 130 472], [2015 AIOL 3152], [2015 CRIMES SC 2 179], [2015 CRIMES SC 2 209], [2015 CRLJ SC 2396], [2015 JCC SC 2 974], [2015 JT 5 203], [2015 SCALE 4 120], [2015 SCC 6 287], [2015 SLT 3 431], [2015 SUPREME 3 152], [2015 SCC ONLINE SC 272], [2015 CTC 3 103], [2015 KLJ 2 491], [2015 KERLT 2 451], [2015 SCC CRI 4 153], [2015 SCC CIV 3 294]
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163299097/
Casemine link: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5790b242e561097e45a4e25a
The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.
In this landmark case, Supreme Court clarified the position on whether a police officer is bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) or the police officer has the power to conduct a “preliminary inquiry” in order to test the veracity of such information before registering the same?”
Conclusion/Directions:
111) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
Lalita Kumari Vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12 November, 2013(i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
(ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
(iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
(iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
(v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
(vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
(vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
(viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.
Citation: [(2014) 2 SCC 1], [2014 JCC SC 1 1], [2013 SCALE 13 559], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 979], [2014 AIR SC 187], [2013 JT 14 399], [2013 CRIMES SC 4 243], [2013 AIOL 744], [2013 SLT 9 1], [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 4 680], [2013 SUPREME 8 1], [2014 CRIMES SC 4 488], [2013 ALLMR CRI SC 4444], [2013 AIR SC 6386], [2014 SCC CRI 1 524], [2014 SCC 2 1], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 999], [2013 CTC 6 353], [2013 KERLT 4 632], [2014 CRILJ 470], [2014 AIC 134 155], [2013 KLJ 4 686], [2014 ECRN 1 180], [2014 KCCR 2 1305], [2014 CHN 2 7], [2013 PLJR 4 504], [2014 GLT SC 2 1], [2013 KHC 4 552], [2014 NCC 1 161], [2014 ALT CRL AP 1 100], [2014 ALLCC 84 719], [2014 SCJ 1 68], [2014 GLD SC 2 355], [2013 JLJR 4 505], [2013 UC 3 2017], [2013 MPHT SC 5 336], [2013 AD SC 12 209], [2014 OLR 1 5], [2014 ALD CRL SC 1 159], [2013 MLJ CRI 4 579], [2014 LW CRL 1 1], [2014 CHN SC 2 7], [2014 OLR SC 1 5], [2013 KLT SC 4 632], [2013 ALLMR CRI 4444], [2013 KLT 4 632], [2013 MLJ CRL 4 579], [2013 BOMCR CRI 4 680], [2014 CRI LJ 470], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL 4 979], [2013 JT SC 14 399], [2013 AIR SCW 6386]
Other links :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10239019/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af33e4b0149711415cb3
Bad Behavior has blocked 873 access attempts in the last 7 days.
