HYDERABAD: The Hyderabad High Court has held that it is not open to police authorities to deviate or show any laxity in taking appropriate action in case a report alleging cognizable criminal offence is received by them.
“The scope and import of the statutory obligation of the police to register a first information report (FIR) upon receiving a complaint is no longer res integra (an untouched matter). In Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh case, the Supreme Court summarised the law in connection with the registration of crimes,” the court noted.
A writ petition was filed in the High Court questioning the inaction of the police in registering the complaint of a petitioner. The petitioner sought directions to the police to register FIR against the accused persons concerned basing upon his complaint and to conduct investigation.
Justice C Praveen Kumar observed that as per the settled legal position and since the allegations prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offence, it is not open to the police authorities to deviate therefrom or show any laxity in taking appropriate action in case a report alleging cognizable criminal offence is received by them. In the event the offence alleged is a non-cognizable once, the police authorities are bound to follow the due procedure laid down in Section 155 of CrPC. In any event, the police authorities must take suitable action in the matter in case of receipt of report disclosing cognizable offence as expeditiously as possible, the judge ruled.
The Supreme Court, in the 2014 case of Lalita Kumari vs Government of UP, summarised the law in connection with registration of crimes as under:
1 The registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of CrPC if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
2If 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 a cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
3 If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where the 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 the reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
4 A police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering an FIR if a 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.
5 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.
6 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: a) matrimonial disputes/family disputes b) commercial offences c) medical negligence cases d) corruption cases and e) cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating a criminal prosecution.
7 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 seven days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the general diary entry.
8 Since the daily diary is the record of all information received in a police station, all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of an FIR, must be “mandatorily” reflected in the said diary.