Meera Singh vs State of Rajasthan and others

Chauhan, J.—The instant writ petition ha;, been filed for directing the respondents to register Firs! Information Report and investigate the case pertaining to the death of Brij Raj Singh.

(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that on 23.8.2000, at 3:15 a.m., one Ashok Singli, Inrharge of Balsamand Hotel, Jodhpur. reported the matter Jo the Police Station, Mandore (Jodhpur) that Brij Raj .Singh had drown in the lake. The police reached the spot, recovered the dead bodv of Brij Raj Singh and sent it for autopsy which was conducted on the same day by the Medical Jurist, M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur.

(3). The police started proceedings u/s 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") and the same have not yet been concluded. The petitioner-mother of deceased Brij Raj Singh has alleged in this petition that she had approached various times to the police authorities to lodge an F.I.R. but the same has not been registered and even her statement was not recorded. Hence this petition.

(4). The object of lodging the F.I.R. is to put the polire in motion in order to investigate the alleged crime. Its evidentiary value- is not very much as i! is not a substantive piece of evidence but its value depends on the circumstances of each case including the nature of the crime and the position of the informant etc. The receipt and recording of the information by the police, though may not be a condition precedent for setting in motion of a criminal proceeding but it is a statutory right of the complainant to lodge a report for the reason that an informant has a right to set the criminal law in motion and also from the point of view of the investigating authorities it is important lor obtaining information about the alleged criminal activity so as to take appropriate and suitable steps lor tracing and bringing at the book the guilty party.

(5). Section 154 of the Code has three-fold objects, i.e. (i) it keeps the police and the District Magistrate informed; (ii) it makes available to the Judicial Officer the material, on which the investigation commences; and (iii) it is a safe-guard against embellismcnt or forgetfulncss. Moreso, it is not necessary that mere must be a complete or satisfactory proof of the offence at the time as the information may merely indicate that the offence has been committed. The F.I.R. must be recorded without wait until it is certain that the offence lias really been committed. The information can be lodged by any person and it is not necessary that the offender or the witnesses should be named therein.

(6). The issue : whether FIR, when asked, must be lodged or not, has been considered from lime to lime by the courts. In A.R. Antulcy vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak (1), the Constitution Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that "any one can set or put the criminal law in motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary. The scheme of the Cr.P.C. envisages two parallel and independent agencies for taking criminal offences to Court. Even for most serious offence of murder, it was not disputed that a private complaint cannot only be filed but can be entertained and proceeded with in accordance with law. Locus standi of the complainant is a concept foreign to the criminal jurisprudence."

(7). In State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (2), the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed as under: -

"At the stage of registration of a crime or a case on tne 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 lodged by the informant is reliable or genuine orotherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. On the other hand, the Officer Incharge of a Police Station is statutorily obliged to register a case and then to proceed wilh the investigalion 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.....Be it noted that Section 154(1) of the Code, the Legislature in its wisdom has carefully and consciously 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(J)(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."

(8). From the above, it becomes apparent that the only condition precedent for recording the F.I.R., is that there must be an information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence and once such an information is Furnished, it becomes sine-qua-non for lodging the report and in such a situation when information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence is conveyed to the Officer Incharge of a Police Station, he cannot refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible, rather he is under legal obligation to register a case on the said information. Needless to say that he has an option u/Sec. 157 of the Code subsequent thereto to make up his mind as to whether he would or would not enter on an investigation.

(9). The submission made by Mr. Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General that F.I.R. cannot be lodged by the pelitioner in view of pendency of the proceedings u/s 174 of the Code is preposterous for the reason that the object of the proceedings u/s 174 is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death or if so, what is the apparent cause of the death. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumslances he was assaulted, is foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings u/s 174 of the Code.

(10). The proceedings u/s 174 of the Code are under the supervision, or the police officer acting u/s 174 is accountable only to the Executive Magistrate empowered to investigate. The conclusion reached therein cannot be a subject matter of judicial scrutiny as is permissible u/s 173 of the Code. If an investigation is held on the basis of an F.I.R., the police has to submit the report. It may be a Final Report requesting the case to be consigned to record as untraced or may be bringing the charges at home. In both the circumslances, the Magistrate has a power under Sub-section (8) of Section 173 to investigate the case further. If the submission made by Mr. Vyas, the learned Additional Advocate.General, is accepted that an F.I.R. cannot be lodged during pendency of proceedings u/Sec. 174, it would completely lake away the proceedings wilhin the purview of the Magistrate to act u/s 173 of the Code and such an interpretation is not permissible as it would render the said provision nugalory. Moreso, as explained above, the purpose and scope of bolh the provisions, i.e. Sec, 154(1) & 174 of the Code are enlirely different; proceedings therein are different in nature and conclusion reached therein are also different. Thus, the submission made on behalf of the State is not worth acceptance.

(11). Even otherwise, under the Scheme of the Code, on registration of a case u/s 154(1) of the Code, irrespecltve of whether the investigation is embarked upon or not, the mailer is bound to be placed before an independent and impartial judicial forum and when it is so placed, various options are available to the judicial officer. Therefore, to accept the submissions made on behalf of the State would have the effect of the matter never coming to the guise of the judicial scrutiny. Such a situation has not been contemplated by the Code.

(12). In Kuldeep Singh vs. State (3), the Delhi High Court, in a similar case, held as under:-

"Conferment of absolute and uncanalised discretion to the police to register a cognizable offence or not, would be violative of equality clause enshrined in our Conslitulion. The Code vests power in judiciary to control the discretion of the police. The judiciary will remain unaware in absence of recording the F.I.R. Whenever the police officer, after recording of the F.I.R., has reasonable doubt about the commission of a cognizable offence, he has power not to proceed with investigation but that is subjecl to check by the judiciary.....on information being led before the police about the commission of cognizable offence, the police has no option but to register the case and then to proceed with investigation of the case under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code....The police has no right to refuse registration of a case on the information being led before it about the commission of cognizable offence and instead proceed with an enquiry and refuse registration as a result of said enquiry."

(13). In a recent case in Mohindro vs. State of Punjab & Ore (4), the Hon''ble Supreme Court rejected the submission of the investigating agency that F.I.R. under Sec. 154(1) of the Code cannot be registered for the reason that enquiry in the mailer had already been conducted and held that enquiry cannot be conducted without registering a case. The Hon''ble Supreme Court directed that a case be registered on the basis of the report at the Police Siation having territorial jurisdiction and to duly investigate into the matter and to take appropriate action according to law.

(14). To facililate the matter further, it has been repeatedly held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court thai the information/report can be lodged at a police station even having no territorial jurisdiction over the place of crime or power to investigale the matter in case of complaint about a cognizable offence. In Slate of Andhra Pradesh vs. Punati Ramalu & ors. (5), the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that nol recording the report on the ground that the concerned police station has no territorial jurisdiction over the place of crime, amounts to dereliction from duty and in such an event, the reporl must be accepted and furnished to the police having jurisdiction over the place of crime. Similar view has been reiterated in Satvindra Kaur vs. Stale (6).

(15). In SureshChandraJaln vs. State (7), the Apex Courl held that it is the duty of the Officer Incharge of a police station to register an F.I.R. regarding the cognizable offence disclosed by the complainant because the Police Officer would take further steps contemplated in Chapler XII of the Code only thereafter.

(16), This case falls wilhin the four-corners of the decision given by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mohindro (supra) and consequently deserves to be allowed.

(17). Thus, in wake of the above, it is hereby directed that an F.I.R. be registered by respondent No.3 forthwith and investigation be conducted expeditiously in accordance with law.