Rekha Mittal, J.
This order will dispose of the aforementioned petitions as these involve adjudication of identical questions of law and fact.
The short question, which arises for examination and decision is, whether this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ‘the Code’), should intervene in case of failure on the part of the concerned police officer to register an FIR on the allegations that a cognizable offence has been committed.
Counsel for the petitioners, in support of their plea that a direction may be issued to the official respondents for registration of an FIR have relied upon the latest judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68 of 2008), Manu/SC/1166/2013.
To examine the issue, it is imperative to extract the reference made to the Larger Bench, which has been answered in Lalita Kumari's case (supra)
“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?”
Hon'ble the Apex Court, on a detailed examination of the provisions of Sections 154, 156 and 157 of the Code while examined in the light of divergent views expressed in two sets of judgments referred therein, recorded its conclusion in para 111 of the judgment and issued certain directions to the police authorities in regard to the registration of FIR and/or conducting of ‘preliminary inquiry’ in certain cases before registration of FIR and the period during which the ‘preliminary inquiry’ is to be completed.
Perusal of the reference made to the Constitution Bench makes it evident that it was neither the scope of reference whether the High Court, in case of failure of the police authorities to register an FIR relating to commission of cognizable offence, can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to issue directions for registration of first information report nor any such issue was otherwise deliberated much less answered.
Now the question arises, whether this Court under Section 482 of the Code should exercise jurisdiction for redressal of grievance of the petitioner (s) that the official respondents have failed to register the FIR.
The issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India, (2007) 6 SCC 171 and Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 409.
In Aleque Padamsee's case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court, after a detailed discussion on the provisions of Section 154 and 156 of the Code, disposed of the writ petitions with certain directions incorporated in para 8 of the judgment. A relevant extract from para 8 is quoted herein below:-
“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.”
The matter again came up for consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Sakiri Vasu's case (supra), wherein the Apex Court recorded its conclusions in para 26 and 27, usefully quoted herein below:-
“26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies?
27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C”
In view of the settled position of law laid down in Aleque Padamsee's case (supra) and Sakiri Vasu's case (supra), there is no reason for this Court to issue any such direction as prayed for, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. The petitions are accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy, in accordance with law.
Before parting with this order, I would like to clarify that nothing stated in this order shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the allegations set up by the petitioners nor the Court has adverted itself to the issue, if the allegations do or do not constitute any cognizable offence having been committed.
Photocopy of this order be placed on all connected files.
Comments