Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh- was made decision by a Five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Honorable Supreme Court on 12th November 2013. In the present appeal, the appellant Lalita Kumari has appealed against the Government of UP through a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh 12 November, 2013

Background  (Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh 2013)

• Lalita kumari, a minor girl has been kidnapped; her father filed a writ petition of habeas corpus under article 32 of Indian constitution in the supreme court of India for the protection of his daughter.
• The petitioner on 11.01.2008, made his grievances to officer in-charge of the police station who did not make any action or efforts on the same. Afterwards, an FIR was lodged by the SP and yet, no steps were taken for apprehending the accused or for the recovery of the minor girl, Lalita.

Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of Uttar Pradesh

Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh 2013
In The Supreme Court of India
Criminal Original Jurisdiction
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68 OF 2008
Bench : P Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan, Ranjana Prakash Desai, Ranjan Gogoi, S.A. Bobde

Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. & Ors., 2013, was made decision by a Five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Honorable Supreme Court on 12th November 2013. In the present appeal, the appellant Lalita Kumari has appealed against the Government of UP through a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Issues involved in the Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh

Whether a police officer of a station is bound to register an FIR on the basis of information related to cognizable offence under section 154 of the code criminal procedure, 1973 or the police officer officer has the power to conduct a preliminary inquiry in order to test the veracity of such information before registering the same ?

Advanced argument

Petitioner’s Contentions

Section 154(1) indicates the ‘word’ which means there is no discretion left to the police officer except to register the FIR. The decision made in the following cases support the proposition in section 154(1) of CrPC, viz., Premanand v. Mohan Koikal[i], M/s Hiralal Rattanlal v.State of U.P. and Anr.[ii], and Govindlal Chhaganlal Patel v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Godhra and Ors[iii].

In the said section mention the word `Information’ without prefixing the word ‘reasonable or credible’ that means that genuineness or credibility of the information is not an important condition precedent for registration of filing a case.

The judgment made in the following cases support the proposition, viz., Ganesh Bhavan Patel and Another v. State of Maharashtra[iv],State of Harayana v. Bhajan Lal[v],and Aleque Padamsee and Others v. Union of India and Others[vi].

Respondent’s Contentions

by citation of the case Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh it is highlighted-:

• State of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh contended that the registration of FIR is mandatory u/s 154 CrPC 1973, if the any part of the information discloses a cognizable offence and there no preliminary inquiry is allowed in such conditions.
• State of Maharashtra and Chhatisgarh contended that a preliminary inquiry should be conducted before the registration of FIR on the following grounds:

• • The ingredients of Section 154(1) must be read in with provision of Article 14, 19 and 21 of The Constitution Of India, which provides that no citizen shall be subjected to malicious practice of prosecution and any innocent person shall not be implicated in a criminal case. The liberty of a citizen would be in jeopardy if a police officer proceeds to register an FIR without being satisfied about the occurrence of a cognizable offence.
  • Do not depend over a single provision of a statute, it cannot be read and interpreted in isolation, but the statute must be read as a whole. Hence, the provisions of section 41, 156, 57, 167, 190, 200 and 202 of the CrPC must be read together.

• Section 154(3) enables the complainant to approach the SP to register the FIR if the same is not willing to lodge by the officer in-charge of the police station. This shows that the police officer is not bound to register the FIR if he is suspicious about the veracity of the information/complaint.
• The noted FIR under section 154 in the book is subsequent to entry in the General Diary must be maintained in the Police station. Hence, information is a document at the earliest in the General Diary, then if any preliminary inquiry is required, the police officer conduct the same and thereafter, the information is noted down as FIR
• the rule purposive interpretation has been preferred over literal interpretation in chairman Board of Mining Examination and chief inspector of Mines and Anr. v/s Ramjee

Observations:-

Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh 12 November, 2013

1. The FIR is a pertinent document that assists in setting the criminal law in motion and obtaining information about the alleged criminal activity.
2. The 1^st rule of interpretation of a statute is the literal rule of interpretation. The use of word ‘Shall’ in Section 154(1) of the Code clearly exhibits the legislative intent that it is mandatory to lodge an FIR if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. In this regard, reliance was placed on the observations made in the leading case M/s Hiralal Rattanlal[viii] and B. Premanand[ix].
3. The word used as ‘Complaint’ In previous Codes of 1861 and 1872 was replaced by the word ‘information’ as it occurs in the present Code of 1973. Also, it is not prefixed by the words ‘reasonable’ or ‘credible’ unlike the Section 41(1)(a) or (g). This shows that the only condition which is sine qua non for recording an FIR is that there must be information disclosing a cognizable offence. In this regard, reliance was placed in the case of Lallan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar[x].
4. A record in the General Diary under section- 44 of the Police Act, 1861 is not the fulfillment of the requirements of Section 154 of the Code. In Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar[xi], it was held that the registration of FIR must be noted down in FIR Book/Register as General Diary contains only the substance of each FIR being registered at the police station. It is also noted that in the context of Article 254(1) of the Constitution, if there is any inconsistency between the laws made by the Parliament (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) and the laws made by the State Legislatures (The Police Act, 1861), the former will prevail over the dispute.
5. Registration of FIR against an accused u/s 154 and arrest of an accused u/s 41 are different concepts under the law, and multiple safeguards are available against arrest along with the provision of anticipatory bail u/s 438 of the Code.
6. In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P.[xii], that arrest cannot be made on a mere allegation of commission of an offence against a person. Also, police officer can also be tried and punished u/s 166 for misusing or manipulating his power of arrest. Therefore, Section 154 of the Code is not in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
7. Although, it is mandatory to register an FIR on receiving the information about cognizable offence, yet, there may be instances where preliminary inquiry may be required, like, the cases related to medical negligence (Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab [xiii]) and corruption (P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras [xiv]).

[Judgment]   -Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh on 12 November, 2013
In the light of the aforesaid observations, the hon’ble Supreme Court gave various directions-

1. It is mandatory to lodge an FIR u/s 154 of the Code, if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. If the information does not disclose a cognizable offence at the instance but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be made to ascertain whether information reveals any cognizable offence or not.
2. If the inquiry made by this discloses a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered under section 154 CrPC. If not, a copy of the entry of closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than 7 days.
3. the Cases in which preliminary inquiry may be needed before the registration of FIR are follows which are not exhaustive–:

Matrimonial disputes/Family disputes

Commercial offences

Medical Negligence cases

Corruption cases

Cases where there is abnormal delay in initiating criminal prosecution.
These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.

Conclusion

The completion of preliminary inquiry must not exceed 7 days/ one week and every information related to the identical shall be recorded in the General Diary, maintained in the police station strictly.

this case (Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh on 12 November, 2013)

was set a landmark guideline while registering the FIR whether the preliminary inquiry is compulsory or not and what will be that conditions where it is mandatory.

Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh-  written by Akash Kumar.

Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh

Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh

for more, please visit

AskAkash

M.Nagaraj & Others vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 October, 2006 (reservation case)