In a landmark Judgement, a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India has held that Police Officers Are Bound To Register FIR Upon Receiving Information of Commission of a Cognizable Offence in India (PDF). Through this Article, Perry4Law has provided the interpretation and Ratio Decidendi of the Judgment named Lalita Kumari v. Govt Of UP (2013) SC (5J).
Perry4Law has also summarised the Judgment of Supreme Court and the crux of the matter is that the Supreme Court if India has declared that Police Officers are bound to Register FIR Upon Receiving Information of Commission of a Cognizable Offence in India (PDF). There are few “Exceptions” to this general rule but in majority of cases Police Officers in India would be left with no option but to register a First Information Report (FIR) on becoming aware of the commission of a cognizable offence.
If a Police Officer fails to register an FIR after becoming aware of a cognizable offence, action can be taken against such Police Officer. Such registration of FIR is mandatory and no preliminary enquiry is permissible in cognizable offenses except in selective few cases.
A preliminary enquiry can be conducted by a Police Officer in other cases to find out whether the offense is cognizable or not and such probe must be completed within seven days.
The Bench held as follows:
(i) 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.
(ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
(iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. 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 forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
(iv) 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.
(v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
(vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The categories of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
(vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
(viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct 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, as mentioned above.