Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Saturday, November 23, 2024

Karnataka HC Directs DGP To Issue SOP To All SHOs For Compliance Of Lalitha Kumari Judgment On Registration Of FIR

Posted in: Criminal Law
Fri, Aug 4, 23, 15:46, 1 Year ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 7935
Vittal vs The PSI of Bableshwar Police Station in Lalita Kumari’s case pertaining to the registration of FIRs when a cognizable offence is made out in the complaint and instruct them to follow it scrupulously.

It is really in the fitness of things that while rising to the occasion for the welfare of the litigants, the Kalaburagi Bench of the Karnataka High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Vittal vs The PSI of Bableshwar Police Station in Writ Petition No. 201668 of 2023 (GM-Police) and Neutral Citation No. - NC: 2023:KHC-K:5678 and also cited in 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 294 which was finally pronounced on July 20, 2023 has most commendably directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to issue necessary circular/SOP to all (police) Station House Officers in respect of the most landmark directions issued by the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari’s case pertaining to the registration of FIRs when a cognizable offence is made out in the complaint and instruct them to follow it scrupulously.

It is high time and Centre must amend the law and make it a serious, cognizable and non-bailable offence for the police if they dare to refuse to register an FIR. The moot question is: Why should men in uniform be given a long rope always and not held accountable for not doing their duty by which they are bound to do?

Needless to say, why should a common person suffer endlessly because of the police? Why should such person in police uniform not be dismissed from service if they dare to refuse to lodge an FIR? If persons in uniform in police are most strictly held accountable then no person in police uniform will ever dare to refuse to lodge FIR or dare to demand bribe for lodging an FIR! We have seen how just recently the Apex Court wondered aloud that in Manipur why police for 14 days had refused to lodge an FIR? There can be no gainsaying that this definitely requires prompt redressal and cannot be put on the backburner any longer!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Suraj Govindaraj of Kalaburagi Bench of the Karnataka High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;

 

  1. Issue direction to the Respondent in the form of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent to register the FIR against the accused as per Annexure-A and C in the interest of justice and equity.
     
  2. This Hon’ble Court may further pleased to issue any other order/writ for the end of justice.

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that:
The grievance of the petitioner is that the complaint made by the petitioner on 18.11.2022 against certain persons has not been registered as a FIR by the respondent-police and no action has been taken thereon. A perusal of the complaint dated 18.11.2022 indicates that the complaint made was that there was an assault on the daughter-in-law of the petitioner/complainant, her cell phone was taken from her, she was abused and was threatened with death. The same amounts to cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code.

It is worth noting that the Bench enunciates in para 3 that:
The Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014)2 SCC 1 more particularly para 120 thereof, has held as under;

Conclusion/Directions
120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:

120.1. The 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.

120.2. 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.

120.3. 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.

120.4. 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.

120.5. 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.

120.6. 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 category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:

  1. Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
  2. Commercial offences
  3. Medical negligence cases
  4. Corruption cases
  5. 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.

120.7. 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.

120.8. 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.

Most forthrightly, the Bench points out in para 4 stating that:
It was but required for the police officer to register an FIR when the complaint discloses a cognizable offense. The complaint having been filed on 18.11.2022 and FIR not having been registered till date is impermissible and would also amount to dereliction of duty. This is not a stray case, there are many cases of the like nature which have come up before this Court and this Court has applied the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari’s case and directed the registration of the FIR.

Most significantly, we see that the the Bench then mandates in para 5 holding that:
The Director General of Police is directed to issue necessary circular/SOP to all Station House Officers in respect of the directions issued in Lalita Kumari’s case at para 120 produced hereinabove with instructions to follow them scrupulously, the Circular/SOP to be issued both in English and Kannada, including the translation of para 120 in Kannada. The SOP to also indicate the nature of disciplinary proceedings that would be taken up if not followed.

Adding more to it and for the sake of clarity, the Bench then further hastens to add in para 6 directing that:
The Direct General Police is also directed to forward a Kannada translated copy of the entire judgment to all Station House Officers, so that they are able to understand the judgement and what is expected of them in Kannada, if they are not able to understand the same in English.

Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 7 of this notable judgment that:
Hence, I pass the following;

ORDER

  1. The writ petition is allowed.
  2. Respondent police are directed to register FIR against the accused in pursuance of the complaint dated 18.11.2022 and take up investigation of the matter.
  3. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the complaint. The investigation will be conducted independently on the basis of evidence collected.
  4. Though the above matter is disposed re-list on 29.8.2023 for reporting compliance by the Director General of Police.


All said and done, we must definitely applaud what has been held by the Kalaburagi Bench of the Karnataka High Court in this leading case so elegantly, eloquently and effectively which must be certainly implemented also most strictly. But this alone is certainly not enough! Suffice it to say, it is high time and Centre and our law makers must now take the requisite steps to make the non registration of FIR a non-bailable and cognizable offence and those persons in uniform who refuse to lodge an FIR have no prima facie case to be allowed to continue to be in police!

The billion dollar question is: How long will police still not be held accountable? How long will they be allowed to behave as per their own whims and fancies and yet still not be held accountable? How long will they be given a long rope and get away scot free even after not lodging an FIR by shamelessly refusing to do so due to which the victim of a crime is further made to undergo huge mental stress and in many cases have to shell out huge money just for registration of FIR which seldom is noticed even though we all know of it happening on a large scale? It is high time and the police reforms as directed by the Apex Court in Prakash Singh case way back in 2006 must be implemented at least now so that the police force gains more credibility and more respect in the eyes of the public for whom they are meant actually!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top