Case Law Analysis of Ramesh Kumari Vs. State N C T Of Delhi, 2006 (2) SCC 677
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 154 - Nature of provision - Provision is mandatory - The provision of Section 154 of the Code is mandatory and the concerned officer is duty bound to register the case on the basis of such an information disclosing cognizable offence.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 154 - Registration of FIR - Powers of Police Officer to go into genuineness of credibility of information - Genuineness or otherwise of the information can only be considered after registration of the case. Genuineness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 156 - Investigation by CBI - Allegations against police officials - In the present case, the learned Additional Solicitor General although vehemently opposed registration of the case but he fairly concedes that if at all the case be registered and investigation is to be carried out, the CBI would be an appropriate authority to register a case and investigate. We are also of the view that since there is allegation against the police personnel, the interest of justice would be better served if the case is registered and investigated by an independent agency like the CBI.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 154 - Cognizable offence - Mandatory provision to register a case - Pendency of contempt petition or availability of an alternative remedy is not a substitute in law not to register a case when a citizen makes a complaint of a cognizable offence against a Police Officer - In the interest of justice CBI directed to register case and complete investigation within a period of three months.
Specifically, it may be pointed out that paras nos. 3 and 4 of the Judgement are paraphrased as herein under:-
3. That the Police Officer mandatorily registers a case on a complaint of a cognizable offence by the citizen u/s 154 of the Code are no more res integra. The point of law has been set at rest by this Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, the whole gamut and intricacies of the mandatory nature of Section 154 of the Code has arrived at the finding in paras 31 & 32 of the judgment as under:
31. At the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence in compliance with the mandate of Section 154(1) of the Code, the concerned police officer cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information, laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. On the other hand, the officer in charge of a police station is statutorily obliged to register a case and then to proceed with the investigation if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered u/s 156 of the Code to investigate, subject to the proviso to Section 157. (As we have proposed to make a detailed discussion about the power of a police officer in the field of investigation of a cognizable offence within the ambit of Sections 156 and 157 of the Code in the ensuing part of this judgment, we do not propose to deal with those sections in extenso in the present context). In case, an officer in charge of a police station refuses to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and to register a case on the information of a cognizable offence reported and thereby violates the statutory duty cast upon him, the person aggrieved by such refusal can send the substance of the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned who if satisfied that the information forwarded to him discloses a cognizable offence, should either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him in the manner provided by Sub-section (3) of Section 154 of the Code.
32. Be it noted that in Section 154(1) of the Code, the legislature in its collective wisdom has carefully and cautiously used the expression "information" without qualifying the same as in Section 41(1)(a) or (g) of the Code wherein the expressions, "reasonable complaint" and "credible information" are used. Evidently, the non-qualification of the word "information" in Section 154(1) unlike in Section 41(1)(a) and (g) of the Code may be for the reason that the police officer should not refuse to record an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence and to register a case thereon on the ground that he is not satisfied with the reasonableness or credibility of the information. In other words, 'reasonableness' or 'credibility' of the said information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. A comparison of the present Section 154 with those of the earlier Codes will indicate that the legislature had purposely thought it fit to employ only the word "information" without qualifying the said word. Section 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1861 (Act 25 of 1861) passed by the Legislative Council of India read that 'every complaint or information' preferred to an officer in charge of a police station should be reduced into writing provision was subsequently modified by Section 112 of the Code of 1872 (Act 10 of 1872) which thereafter read that 'every complaint' preferred to an officer in charge of a police station shall be reduced in writing. The word 'complaint' which occurred in previous two codes of 1861 and 1872 was deleted and in that place the word 'information' was used in the Codes of 1882 and 1898 which word is now used in Sections 154, 155, 157 and 189(c) of the present Code of 1973 (Act 2 of 1974). An overall reading of all the Codes makes it clear that the condition; which is since qua non for recording a first information report is that there must be an information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence.
Finally, this Court in para 33 said:
33. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information.
4. The views expressed by this Court in paragraphs 31, 32 and 33 as quoted above leave no manners of doubt that the provision of Section 154 of the Code is mandatory and the concerned officer is duty bound to register the case on the basis of such an information disclosing cognizable offence.
About Us: Founded by Anil B. (Lawyer), Satyagraha Law Group provides legal services for seekers looking for help by searching for Corporate Law, Civil Law, Criminal Law, Writs, High Court Lawyer, NRI Lawyer, Lawyer In Hyderabad, India.
Now, feel free to share this link if you find the information useful. In case of need, you may schedule a quick meeting with the Author by clicking
here.
In case of an urgent need, do not hesitate to contact me directly.
Anil (Lawyer / Advocate)
P: +91 7095 776633 (India)
P: +1 (408) 462 7600 (USA)
Disclaimer and Notice: This website and articles contained within the site, it is hereby declared that this site and any files associated with it are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. This is not a solicitation. By usage of this site, you (reader / visitor), viz., intended recipient are consenting and agreeing to the terms of the website. If you are not in consent, please do not proceed any further. Specifically, no claim is made to provide any legal advice to you. For legal advice, you are advised to reach out to an appropriate lawyer. An appropriate legal course of action is contingent upon the facts of the case as well as the governing law.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this information or any action taken in reliance on this website is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
