LI Network
Published on: 15 August 2023 at 11:32 IST
The Supreme Court of India has recently reiterated the imperative nature of registering First Information Reports (FIRs) under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) when police authorities receive information about a cognizable offense.
A bench comprising of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Dutta addressed an appeal originating from a Bombay High Court decision that declined a petition urging the state to initiate a criminal case.
The bench stated, “In the current scenario, the complaints submitted by the appellant to the concerned respondents clearly indicated the occurrence of a cognizable offense and identified the alleged perpetrators. Therefore, we uphold this appeal and direct the concerned respondents to proceed in accordance with the law based on the complaints filed by the appellant.”
This pronouncement aligns with the landmark verdict of the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari V. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014), which underscores the essential role of FIRs in ensuring swift and accountable legal proceedings.
The court reiterated and summarized the following legal principles:
1. Mandatory FIR Registration: Registration of an FIR becomes mandatory when the received information distinctly reveals the commission of a cognizable offense.
2. Preliminary Inquiry: In cases where the received information does not explicitly denote a cognizable offense but suggests the necessity of an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted. However, this inquiry must focus solely on determining the presence or absence of a cognizable offense.
3. Inquiry Outcome: If the preliminary inquiry substantiates the occurrence of a cognizable offense, an FIR must be promptly registered. Conversely, if the inquiry concludes that a cognizable offense is not evident, a summary of the complaint’s closure, accompanied by succinct reasons, should be furnished to the informant within a week.
4. Responsibility of Police Officer: The failure to register an FIR could lead to disciplinary actions against the responsible officers.
5. Scope of Preliminary Inquiry: The court clarified that the scope of a preliminary inquiry is not to verify the accuracy of the received information, but rather to establish the presence of a cognizable offense. The types of cases suitable for preliminary inquiries, such as matrimonial and family disputes, were delineated.
6. Time-Bound Preliminary Inquiry: Preliminary inquiries should be conducted within a strict timeframe of 7 days.
7. Inclusion in General Diary: This requirement encompasses details related to FIR registration, initiation of preliminary inquiries, and any subsequent developments. This inclusion enhances transparency and accountability.
8. Reflection of Delays: The reasons for any delays in the investigative process must also be documented, ensuring a comprehensive record of the timeline.
Case Title: Sindhu Janak Nagargoje v. State of Maharashtra
