Sakhi Mohammed vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24.07.2018 whereby, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, Distt. Sriganganagar has refused to send the petitioner's complaint for registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a case of abduction and beating by accused persons illegally due to which the petitioner has sustained injuries on his body. He filed complaint before the S.H.O. P.S. City Suratgarh and Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar. However, no action was taken and finally, the petitioner filed a complaint before the competent Court for registration of an FIR, however, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh vide impugned order dated 24.07.2018 refused to send the complaint for registration of FIR and observed that the complainant may get his witnesses examined for the purpose of inquiry.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the offences are cognizable offences and the complaint should have been sent to the concerned police station for registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs Govt of U.P and Ors reported in AIR 2014 SC 187 wherein, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. So in these circumstances, the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh deserves to be set aside.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner.

I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone through the material on record.

From the perusal of the complaint, it is evident that the complaint mentions the commission of a cognizable offence and the complainant in this case only seeks to get the matter registered and investigated. However, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate , Suratgarjh vide impugned order dated 24.07.2018 refused to send the complaint for registration of FIR.

In the opinion of this court, as per Section 154 Cr.P.C., it is mandatory for the police to register an FIR as and when they receive the complaint regarding cognizable offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC page 1 has specifically laid down that the registration of FIR is mandatory if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary enquiry is permissible in such situation. The relevant part of the judgment reads as under :-

"110. Therefore, in view of various counter claims regarding registration or non-registration, what is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the (4 of 6) [CRLMP-2386/2018] information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR.

Conclusion/Directions:

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:

(i) 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.

(ii) 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.

(iii) 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.

(iv) 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.

(v) 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.

(vi) 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:

(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes

(b) Commercial offences

(c) Medical negligence cases

(d) Corruption cases

(e) 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.

(vii) 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 fifteen days generally and in exceptional cases, by giving adequate reasons, six weeks time is provided. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.

(viii) 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."

In the facts and circumstances of the case so also in the light of the judicial pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court, the present misc. petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.07.2018 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh for sending the complaint to the concerned police station for registration of FIR. Stay petition also stands disposed of.