Tanvi Pilane
Published on: March 13, 2022 at 11:59 IST
The Superintendent of Police of Uttara Kannad District was directed by the Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court to Enquire into and take suitable action against a Police Inspector for failing to register a First Information Report (FIR) in a Cognizable Offence.
It was noted by Justice Suraj Govindraj that the conduct of the officer was in violation of the directions issued by the Supreme court in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh.
The Petitioner’s Sister and her Husband along with 30 Gundas (Gangsters) had entered his Property and used force to remove the Areka Nut Crop around his Property while threatening him.
No action was taken by the Police Inspector in the Taluka when the Petitioner called him, and a phone call made to the Police Helpline on 112 also did not result in anything. The Petitioner then called the Deputy Superintendent of Police who subsequently directed the Police inspector to take action. However, the Inspector only called the Petitioner and his sister to the police station but did not register a complaint.
Aggrieved by this the Petitioner approached the High Court arguing in his petition that his rights had been violated by the non-registration of an FIR by the officer as per the procedure described in Lalita Kumari (supra).
The Court observed that a First Information Report (FIR) is supposed to be registered whenever any information is disclosed about the commission of an offence by the person receiving it. The offences reported by the Petitioner were cognizable under Sections 441 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Tahsildar of the District was directed by the Court to register the First Information Report (FIR) as per the Petitioner’s complaint and to consider his representation. The Superintendent of Police was also directed to take action against the concerned officer.
Also read: