Kirti Vashisht Vs State and Ors on 29 Nov 2019

Delhi High Court passed this order based on Lalita Kumari.

16. 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.

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Punati Ramulu and Ors on 19 Feb 1993

Posted on January 10 by ShadesOfKnife

One of the earliest Judgments around Zero FIR.

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Punati Ramulu and Ors on 19 Feb 1993 (Casemine)

Citations : [1993 AIR SC 2644], [1994 SCC SUPP 1 590], [1993 CRLJ SC 3684], [1994 SCC CRI 1 734], [1993 JT SUPPL SC 531]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1289339/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac7fe4b014971140f064

Umapathi S Vs State of Karnataka on 19 Sep 2019

Posted on January 10 by ShadesOfKnife

High Court of Karnataka directed (forced) the State Government to issue a advisory through DGP of the State regarding implementation of Zero FIR.

Umapathi S Vs State of Karnatak on 19 Sep 2019

Zero FIR Case Laws/ Judgments

Posted on January 10 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is a list of judgments from Supreme Court and various High Courts and Legislative/Police Circulars, which talk about a concept called as Zero FIR, meaning register FIR first and then transfer it to appropriate Police Station in which territorial limits the alleged offence occurred. If FIR is not registered, IPC 166A proceedings can be initiated against the Police officers. More actions available here.

Case Laws or Judgments of Courts

Legislative / Police Circulars

Ministry of Home Affairs Dt: 2013-05-10 : 2013-05-10 Registration of FIR irrespective of territorial jurisdiction and Zero FIR
Ministry of Home Affairs Dt: 2015-10-12 : 2015-10-12 Advisory Compulsory Registration FIRs
DGP Office, Karnataka, Dt: 2019-11-26 : 2019-11-26 Registration of FIR (Zero FIR)

Aaisha Uttarwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 29 April, 2016

Posted on July 14, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Peculiar case here. A writ petition is filed seeking to challenge the transfer of a zero FIR registered from a PS in Chhattisgarh to a PS in Telangana.

Case Brief:

Marriage happened at Bilaspur.
Alleged instances of dowry-related cruelty happened at Secunderabad.
Due to this cruelty Knife goes back to parent’s home and files 498A case at Bilaspur.
Complaint is turned into a zero FIR at Bilaspur.
After preliminary inquiry/examination, SP of Bilaspur transferred the case to Alwal PS through DSP Secunderabad for further investigation holding that the place of occurrence falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Alwal.

Argument made is that the Officer In-charge of the police station was obliged to investigate the offence completely and without completion of the investigation, it was not within the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Police, to transfer the F.I.R./case diary to the Police Station Alwal, District Secunderabad (Telangana) for further investigation and therefore, the order of transfer of F.I.R./case diary to the Police Station Alwal, District Secunderabad (Telangana) is unsustainable in law and therefore, order dated 09/07/2015 passed by Superintendent of Police be set-aside and Station House Officer, Police Station Tarbahar Bilaspur be directed to investigate the offence completely and respondent No. 2 be directed to send back the case diary back to Police Station Tarbahar Bilaspur for investigation of the matter.

Finally,

As the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC being cognizable, the Station House Officer, Tarbahar Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) was obliged to investigate the said offence completely by virtue of provisions contained in Section 156(1) of the Cr.P.C., and unless, the investigation of said crime is completed fully as per procedure laid down in Cr.P.C., F.I.R. could not have been directed to be transferred and such a direction is contrary to law laid down by Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Satvinder Kaur (supra).

Aaisha Uttarwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 29 April, 2016

Lalita Kumari Vs Govt. of U.P. and Ors on 12 November, 2013

Posted on June 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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:

(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.

Lalita Kumari Vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12 November, 2013

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]

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Zero FIR to be Filed Investigated and Transferred

Kirti Vashisht Vs State and Ors on 29 Nov 2019

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Punati Ramulu and Ors on 19 Feb 1993

Umapathi S Vs State of Karnataka on 19 Sep 2019

Zero FIR Case Laws/ Judgments

Aaisha Uttarwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 29 April, 2016

Lalita Kumari Vs Govt. of U.P. and Ors on 12 November, 2013