NEW DELHI, Nov 12: Registration of FIR by police in cognisable offence is a must and action must be taken against officials for not lodging a case on the complaint filed in such offences, the Supreme Court held today.
A five-Judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam said if discretion is allowed to the police in registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) then it can have serious consequences on the public order situation and can also adversely affect the rights of the victims.
The Bench, also comprising Justices B S Chauhan, Ranjan P Desai, Ranjan Gogoi and S A Bobde, however said that depending on facts of the case, a preliminary inquiry may be allowed in cases of matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption cases.
“We hold 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,” the Bench said.
“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,” it said.
“Reasonableness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for the registration of a case,” the Bench said
Referring to provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, the Bench said there is no ambiguity in law that registration of FIR is compulsory.
“The legislative intent is therefore quite clear, i.e., to ensure that every cognizable offence is promptly investigated in accordance with law. This being the legal position, there is no reason that there should be any discretion or option left with the police to register or not to register an FIR when information is given about the commission of a cognizable offence,” it said.
“If a discretion, option or latitude is allowed to the police in the matter of registration of FIRs, it can have serious consequences on the public order situation and can also adversely affect the rights of the victims including violating their fundamental right to equality,” the Bench said in its 96-page verdict.
The apex court said that if the information received by police official does not disclose a cognizable offence then a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not and the scope of inquiry is not to verify the veracity of information but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
“It would be incongruous to suggest that though it is the duty of every citizen to inform about commission of an offence, but it is not obligatory on the officer-incharge of a Police Station to register the report,” the Bench said.
The Bench said that 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 within a week and reasons for closing the complaint must be furnished.
It held that preliminary probe may also be done in cases where there is abnormal delay in initiating criminal prosecution but said that “a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days”.
It said 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.
The Bench set aside the contentions of various State Governments that preliminary inquiry is required before registration of FIR as frivolous complaints are filed and people can be arrested on that basis resulting in violation of their fundamental rights.
“While registration of FIR is mandatory, arrest of the accused immediately on registration of FIR is not at all mandatory. In fact, registration of FIR and arrest of an accused person are two entirely different concepts under the law, and there are several safeguards available against arrest.
“Moreover, it is also pertinent to mention that an accused person also has a right to apply for “anticipatory bail” under the provisions of Section 438 of the Code if the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied,” it said. (PTI)
Follow our WhatsApp channel