Facts
1. This petition, under article 32, was filed by Lalita
Kumari (minor) through her father for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus
against the respondents for the protection of his minor daughter who has been
kidnapped. The grievance in the said writ petition is that on 11.05.2008, a
written report was submitted by the petitioner before the officer in-charge of
the police station concerned who did not take any action on the same.
Thereafter, when the Superintendent of Police was moved, an FIR was registered.
According to the petitioner, even thereafter, steps were not taken either for
apprehending the accused or for the recovery of the minor girl child.
2. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in, Lalita Kumari vs. Government
of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. , after noticing the disparity in registration
of FIRs by police officers on case to case basis across the country, issued
notice to the Union of India, the Chief Secretaries of all the States and
Union Territories and Director Generals of Police/Commissioners of Police
to the effect that if steps are not taken for registration of FIRs immediately
and the copies thereof are not handed over to the complainants, they may move
the Magistrates concerned by filing complaint petitions for appropriate
direction(s) to the police to register the case immediately and for apprehending
the accused persons, failing which, contempt proceedings must be initiated
against such delinquent police officers if no sufficient cause is shown.
3. Pursuant to the above directions, when the matter was
heard by the very same Bench in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors. in 2008,various conflicting decisions were cited. Some of
the decisions showed that it is imperative for the police officer to register a
case under Section 154 of the Code and some of them showed that the
officer-in-charge is not obliged under law to register a case rather the
discretion lies with him to hold some sort of preliminary enquiry in relation
to the veracity of the accusations made in the report. In view of such conflicting
decisions the said bench, referred the matter to a larger bench.
4. Now, the matter pertaining to Lalita Kumari was heard by a
Bench of three-Judges in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors. in 2012, wherein, the court said that the issue which has arisen for
consideration in these cases is of great public importance. In view of the divergent
opinions in a large number of cases decided by the Court, it has become
extremely important to have a clear enunciation of law and adjudication by a
larger Bench of this Court for the benefit of all concerned—the courts, the
investigating agencies and the citizens. Consequently, the matter was referred
to a Constitution Bench of five Judges of for an authoritative judgment.
5. Thus, the only question before the Constitution Bench
relates to the interpretation of Section 154 of the Code and incidentally to
consider Sections 156 and 157 also.
Provisions of Law Involved
1. Section 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 subsection (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
subsection (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.
2. Section 156
3. Section 157
Issues Involved
(i) Whether the immediate non-registration of FIR leads 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; and
(ii) 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.
The Next Part will deal with the Discussion taken up by the court on the various issues involved in this case.
To be Continued....
No comments:
Post a Comment