LALITA KUMARI v. GOVT. OF U.P. AND ORS CASE ANALYSIS: MANDATORY NATURE OF REGISTRATION OF FIR

Spread the love

This case analysis has been completed by Astitva Kumar Rao, third year of the BALLB (HONS.) at Dr. B. R. Ambedkar National Law University, Sonipat, in Haryana.

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CASE – “LALITA KUMARI v. GOVT. OF U.P. AND ORS”

HON’BLE JUDGES – DALVEER BHANDARI, T. S. THAKUR, AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.

PETITIONER – LALITA KUMARI

Vs.

RESPONDENT – GOVT. OF U.P. AND ORS

CITATION – [2013] 14 S.C.R. 713, MANU/SC/1166/2013, AIR 2012 SC 1515

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

The matter relating to the mandatory nature of registration of FIR has plagued and perplexed the judicial mind in the Lalita Kumari case. This case aims to analyze for nonmandatory registration of the First Information Report (hereinafter FIR).

The rationale for the judgment was that “In the light of Article 21, provisions of Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure must be read down to mean that before registering an FIR, the Station House Officer must have a prima-facie satisfaction that there is commission of cognizable offence as registration of an FIR leads to serious consequences for the person named as accused and for this purpose, the requirement of preliminary enquiry can be spelt out in Section 154 and can be said to be implicit within the provisions of Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure.” The judgment to understand the legal and social dilemmas attached to the consequence of non-mandatory registration of FIR.

Beyond well-established legal guidelines, this case presents other concerns, such as the need for a preliminary inquiry. The article makes the constitutional case against the optional FIR registration. The article concludes that the judgement ultimately demonstrates intentions to grant police dictatorial power and to take away many rights that are necessary to seek criminal remedies. This defeats the core reason why people approach the police to have their rights enforced and renders the criminal justice system meaningless.

FACTS

In this case, petitioner Bhola Kamat reported Lalita Kumari, his minor daughter, missing the police station when she did not return for thirty minutes and he was unable to locate her. The police took little effort to find Lalita Kumari, even after filing a formal complaint against a few private respondents who were the main suspects. Bhola Kamat claims that he was requested to pay money to start an investigation and make the accused people appear in court. In the end, the petitioner brought this case before this Court by Article 32 of the Constitution. On 14.7.2008, the court issued a thorough decision in which it expressed its deep distress at the failure to register a police report, even in cases when an offence is cognizable.

ISSUES

Whether the immediate non-registration of FIR lead to scope for manipulation by the police which affects the right of the victim/complainant to have a complaint immediately investigated upon allegations being made?
Whether in cases where the complaint/information does not clearly disclose the commission of a cognizable offence but the FIR is compulsorily registered then does it infringe the rights of an accused?

ARGUMENTS –

PETITIONERS

Since a complaint is received by the officer in charge of the police department, he must record the FIR under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Reliance was put on the judgments of the Apex Court like STATE OF HARYANA V. BHAJAN LAL[1], RAMESH KUMARI V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)[2], and PARKASH SINGH BADAL V. STATE OF PUNJAB[3].
Section 154(1) of the Code, the term “Shall” is used by the Legislation and that the police officer must file the FIR. He claimed that, according to section 154 of the Code, there are no implied provisions relating to the Preliminary Inquiry and thus there is no discretion left to the police officer. In this aspect, reliance was placed upon B. PREMANAND V. MOHAN KOIKAL[4], HIRALAL RATTAN LAL V. STATE OF U.P.[5] AND GOVIND LAL CHAGAN LAL PATEL V. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, GODHRA[6].
Section 154(1) refers to the term ‘information’ without prefixing the words ‘reasonable’ or ‘credible,’ which means that the authenticity or credibility of the information is not a precedent for the registration of the event.

RESPONDENTS

Registration of the FIR cannot be subject to a stricture formula, since it is an administrative action involving the operation of the mind, scrutiny, and the verification of the evidence. No regulatory act can ever be mechanical. Reliance was placed on RAJINDER SINGH KATOCH[7], P. SIRAJUDDIN V. STATE OF MADRAS[8], STATE OF U.P. V. BHAGWANT KISHORE JOSHI[9], AND SEVI V. STATE OF T. N.[10], which states that, before the registration of the FIR under Section 154 of the Code, it is available to the police officer to conduct a preliminary investigation to determine whether or not there is a prima facie case of commission of a cognizable offence.
The statute should not be read in such a way as to result in a lack of discretion on the part of the police officer, particularly in Fake cases where the registration of the FIR leads to an empty formality. Furthermore, it was asserted that any law should be read in the light of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution which provides for the protection of an innocent person from false charges. In cases such as this, a police officer must be equipped with the power to perform a preliminary investigation.

JUDGEMENT

It is mandatory to file the FIR u/s 154 of the Code if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable crime and no preliminary investigation is permissible in such a case. If the information does not reveal a cognizable offence but suggests the need for an investigation, a formal investigation will be undertaken. If the investigation reveals a cognizable offence, the FIR must be reported. If this is not the case, a copy of the entry of the closure must be sent to the first informant immediately and no longer than one week.

Exceptions under which preliminary injury can be made before registration of FIR

Matrimonial disputes/Family disputes
Commercial Offences
Medical Negligence
Corruption
Abnormal delay in initiating criminal prosecution.

These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.

The conclusion of the preliminary investigation shall not exceed 7 days and all records relating thereto shall be reported in the General Diary, which shall be kept in the police station.

ANALYSIS

The purpose intended to be accomplished by recording the earliest evidence as an FIR is, inter alia, twofold:

That the criminal procedure is initiated and well documented from the outset;
That the earliest information obtained in connection with the commission of a cognizable offence is registered so that there can be no embellishment, etc., at a later date.

The Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System headed by Dr Justice V. S. Malimath observed – “According to Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the office in charge of a police station is mandated to register every information oral or written relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. Non-registration of cases is a serious complaint against the police.”

The Apex Court relied on the literal rule of interpretation in this ruling, which concentrates on the clause’s text, as the main rule of interpretation. Other methods of interpretation, such as the purposive interpretation of statutes, were expressly rejected by the Court because they can only be applied in situations where applying the literal interpretation of the statute would, in practice, result in illogical and ridiculous interpretations that are incompatible with the applicable statute. The meaning of the terms “information” and “shall” in the previously cited ruling made this rule clear. Throughout the Code, “information” refers to any information revealing a criminal act and “must” denotes everything required. The prevailing interpretation of the Court has a basic textualist tone. Textualism limits the scope of judicial activity and enables the general population to interpret the law with awareness of their rights, obligations, and responsibilities. Legislative sovereignty is upheld and judicial vigilance is exercised by prioritizing the wording of the legislation over judicial interpretation. The Court’s employment of the various norms and tools for interpretation is a deft manner of maintaining the Legislature’s intent while also giving the words of the Provision their usual sense. The Court is aware that dependability on interpretation alone often leads to dubious results. Presumptions and basic rules of interpretation are employed to help view all the factors that are required for determining the interpretation of Section 154 of the CrPC harmoniously, thereby preventing these outside aids.

CONCLUSION

Regarding the nature of filing a FIR, it is important to remember that, in the majority of criminal instances, people do not even contact the police, and that the situation would get worse if filing a FIR became optional. However, one may only claim the non-compulsory FIR filing at the responsible police system stage. The potential for abuse makes this a serious issue. Furthermore, since a person is not detained in isolation and the mandatory filing of a formal complaint follows a statutory procedure, it is fair and reasonable and does not violate Article 21. Furthermore, according to the criminal justice system’s goals and the rule of law, granting the police an essential judicial role through non-compulsory registration subverts the right to a fair trial.

REFERENCES

ARTICLES –