- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Aleque Padamsee And Others v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners invoked Article 32 of the Constitution complaining of police inaction in registering First Information Reports (FIRs) on complaints filed by Sumesh Ramji Jadhav and Suresh Murlidhar Bosle. The complaints alleged that speeches delivered by Respondents 5 and 6 were inflammatory and threatened communal harmony, thereby disclosing cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code. A complaint against Respondent 5 was initially lodged in Maharashtra but was forwarded to Gujarat because the alleged speech occurred there; no FIR was registered. With respect to Respondent 6, the complainants also sought sanction under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Alleging partisan inaction by Gujarat authorities, the petitioners requested directions from the Supreme Court to (a) compel registration of FIRs and (b) secure governmental sanction wherever required.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, upon disclosure of a cognizable offence, the Supreme Court should issue a writ directing the police to register an FIR.
- What procedure an aggrieved person must follow under the CrPC when the police refuse to register an FIR.
- How requests for governmental sanction under Section 196 CrPC should be addressed.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- A bare reading of the complaints reveals cognizable offences; hence the police are statutorily bound under Section 154 CrPC to register FIRs.
- The State of Gujarat’s counter-affidavit shows a partisan approach: it pre-judged the merits and usurped the roles of investigator and court.
- They relied on Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), where the Supreme Court held that courts can compel registration of an FIR when a cognizable offence is disclosed.
Respondents' Arguments
- The complaints, even if accepted at face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence warranting FIR registration; therefore FIRs should not be lodged as a matter of routine.
- A petition under Article 32 is an inappropriate remedy; the petitioners should pursue the statutory mechanisms provided by the CrPC.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2006) 2 SCC 677 |
Police must register an FIR whenever information discloses a cognizable offence; courts may direct registration. | Cited to acknowledge the duty of police to register FIRs, but distinguished on the question of the proper procedural route when police default. |
| All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees' Union v. Union of India (1996) 11 SCC 582 |
When police fail to register an FIR, the complainant should proceed under Sections 190/200 CrPC; writ petitions are generally not maintainable. | Relied on as the governing precedent for procedural remedy, forming the basis for dismissing the Article 32 request. |
| Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra (2004) 7 SCC 768 |
Reiterated that remedy lies before the Magistrate under Sections 190/200 CrPC, not via writ petitions. | Used to reinforce the procedural pathway articulated in AIIMS Employees' Union. |
| Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar (2006) 4 SCC 359 |
Same principle: magistrate-centric remedy for failure to register FIR. | Quoted to affirm consistency of precedent on available remedies. |
| Hari Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 733 |
Endorsed the view that writ petitions should not be entertained for FIR registration; remedy lies under CrPC. | Relied upon to buttress the court’s decision to deny the Article 32 plea. |
| Lallan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (2006) 12 SCC 229 |
Reiterated the mandatory nature of FIR registration once a cognizable offence is disclosed. | Cited to show that the duty to register stands, albeit procedural recourse is through the Magistrate. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court accepted that, under Section 154 CrPC, police are duty-bound to register an FIR whenever information reveals a cognizable offence. However, it distinguished between that statutory duty and the judicial remedy available when the police default. Reviewing a consistent line of precedent—AIIMS Employees' Union, Gangadhar Mhatre, Minu Kumari, and Hari Singh—the Court held that the proper course for an aggrieved complainant is to approach the Magistrate under Sections 190 and 200 CrPC, who can then take cognizance, direct investigation, or dismiss the complaint as warranted. The Court clarified that Ramesh Kumari addressed only the duty of the police, not the remedial procedure, and therefore no conflict exists between the two sets of cases.
Consequently, the Court declined to issue a writ compelling FIR registration. Regarding sanction under Section 196 CrPC, the Court stated that the appropriate Government must consider the request and decide within three months of receiving the order. Importantly, the Court made no findings on the merits of the alleged offences.
Holding and Implications
Petitions DISPOSED OF with directions.
Implications: The Court reaffirmed two principles: (1) police must register an FIR upon disclosure of a cognizable offence; (2) if they fail, the complainant’s remedy lies with the Magistrate under Sections 190/200 CrPC, not through a writ petition. The decision maintains procedural consistency without creating new substantive precedent, while also requiring the concerned Government to decide sanction requests within three months.
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.— These petitions are filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have stated that they have approached this Court because of inaction of the official respondents in not acting on the report lodged by two persons, namely, Sumesh Ramji Jadhav and Suresh Murlidhar Bosle. The basic grievance is that though commission of offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) was disclosed, the police officials did not register the FIR and, therefore, directions should be given to register the cases and wherever necessary accord sanction in terms of Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “the Code”). It is stated that the speeches made by Respondents 5 and 6 were likely to disturb the communal harmony in the country and the likely result of such inflammatory speeches was to create hatred in the minds of citizens against the persons belonging to minority communities.
2. It appears that so far as Respondent 5 is concerned a complaint was lodged at the police station in the State of Maharashtra where the complainants reside. Since the police authorities in Maharashtra found that the alleged speeches were delivered outside the State of Maharashtra and inside the State of Gujarat, they took up the position that action could be taken by the authorities in Gujarat. Accordingly, the report lodged was sent to the officials in Gujarat. So far as Respondent 6 is concerned, sanction in terms of Section 196 of the Code was prayed for alleging that there was complete inaction and, therefore, the writ petition has been filed. It was pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that since undisputedly, the commission of cognizable offence is disclosed even on a bare reading of the FIR lodged, the authorities were not justified in not registering the FIR. It is contended that the partisan approach of the authorities in the State of Gujarat is writ large, which is evident from a bare reading of the counter-affidavit filed. The role which is to be played by the investigating agency and finally the court has been assumed by the authorities who were not competent to deal with the matter. It is pointed out that in Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2006) 2 SCC 677, AIR 2006 SC 1322 this Court had said that whenever cognizable offence is disclosed the police officials are bound to register the same and in case it is not done, directions to register the same can be given.
3. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent 5 and the State of Gujarat submitted that on a bare reading of the complaint lodged it appears that no offence was made out and whenever a complaint is lodged automatically and in a routine manner FIR is not to be registered. In any event, it is submitted that petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy.
4. Chapter XII of the Code relates to “Information to the Police and Their Powers to Investigate”. Section 154 reads as follows:
“154. Information in cognizable cases.—(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.”
5. Section 156 deals with “Police officer's power to investigate cognizable cases” and the same reads as follows:
“156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case.—(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as abovementioned.”
6. “4. When the information is laid with the police but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant [can under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code lay] the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate after recording evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate into the offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and [could] issue process to the accused.”
These aspects have been highlighted by this Court in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India (1996) 11 SCC 582 It was specifically observed that a writ petition in such cases is not to be entertained. The above position was again highlighted in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra (2004) 7 SCC 768, Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar (2006) 4 SCC 359 and Hari Singh v. State of U.P (2006) 5 SCC 733
7. Whenever any information is received by the police about the alleged commission of offence which is a cognizable one there is a duty to register the FIR. There can be no dispute on that score. The only question is whether a writ can be issued to the police authorities to register the same. The basic question is as to what course is to be adopted if the police does not do it. As was held in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case (1996) 11 SCC 582 and reiterated in Gangadhar case (2004) 7 SCC 768 the remedy available is as set out above by filing a complaint before the Magistrate. Though it was faintly suggested that there was conflict in the views in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case (1996) 11 SCC 582, Gangadhar case (2004) 7 SCC 768, Hari Singh case (2006) 5 SCC 733, Minu Kumari case (2006) 4 SCC 359 and Ramesh Kumari case (2006) 2 SCC 677, AIR 2006 SC 1322, we find that the view expressed in Ramesh Kumari case (2006) 2 SCC 677, AIR 2006 SC 1322 related to the action required to be taken by the police when any cognizable offence is brought to its notice. In Ramesh Kumari case (2006) 2 SCC 677, AIR 2006 SC 1322 the basic issue did not relate to the methodology to be adopted which was expressly dealt with in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case (1996) 11 SCC 582, Gangadhar case (2004) 7 SCC 768, Minu Kumari case (2006) 4 SCC 359 and Hari Singh case (2006) 5 SCC 733. The view expressed in Ramesh Kumari case (2006) 2 SCC 677, AIR 2006 SC 1322 was reiterated in Lallan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (2006) 12 SCC 229, AIR 2006 SC 3376. The course available, when the police does not carry out the statutory requirements under Section 154 was directly in issue in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case (1996) 11 SCC 582, Gangadhar case (2004) 7 SCC 768, Hari Singh case (2006) 5 SCC 733 and Minu Kumari case (2006) 4 SCC 359. The correct position in law, therefore, is that the police officials ought to register the FIR whenever facts brought to their notice show that cognizable offence has been made out. In case the police officials fail to do so, the modalities to be adopted are as set out in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code. It appears that in the present case initially the case was tagged by order dated 24-2-2003 with WP (C) No. 530 of 2002 and WP (C) No. 221 of 2002. Subsequently, these writ petitions were delinked from the aforesaid writ petitions.
8. The writ petitions are finally disposed of with the following directions:
(1) If any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observed.
(2) It is open to any person aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials to adopt the remedy in terms of the aforesaid provisions.
(3) So far as non-grant of sanction aspect is concerned, it is for the Government concerned to deal with the prayer. The Government concerned would do well to deal with the matter within three months from the date of receipt of this order.
(4) We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Alert