Shabnam Khan vs State of M.P.

B.D. Rathi, J.—Status report as called vide order dated 21/2/2014 has not been filed by the State.

It is submitted by Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner that crime has not been registered till now, therefore status report is not being produced.

Heard finally at the stage of motion itself.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is being made subject to harassment by her superior under whose control she has been working as data entry operator. She made several complaints to the police authorities for taking appropriate action in the matter but all in vein and therefore for the inaction on the part of the police authorities, present petition has been moved by her seeking necessary directions for proper investigation and registration of the case. It is submitted that if the matter is not investigated, great injustice will be done with the petitioner as from perusal of the complaint it prima facie appears that cognizable offence has been committed by the accused. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. and Others, .

Having regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner''s counsel, it would be necessary to straightway reproduce provisions contemplated in section 154 of Cr.P.C., which casts duty on the police authority.

Section 154 reads thus:

Information in cognizable cases,-(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction and be read over to the informant; and every such information whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance there of shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.

(2) A copy of the information as recorded under Sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith free of cost to the informant.

(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section(1), may send the substance of such information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him in the manner provided by this Code and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.

It is in respect of cognizable offences, Subsection (1) of Section 154 Cr. P.C. enables the Station House Officer to make an entry regarding the substance of such information and there upon proceed to investigate the matter.

In the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & others (supra) the Hon. Apex Court has laid down in paras 47 to 49 as under:-

The language of Section 154(1), therefore, admits of no other construction but the literal construction.

The legislative intent of Section 154 is vividly elaborated in Bhajan Lal (supra) which is as under:-

The legal mandate enshrined in Section 154(1) is that every information relating to the commission of a "cognizable offence" (as defined u/s 2(c) of the Code) if given orally (in which case it is to be reduced into writing) or in writing to "an officer incharge of a police station" (within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Code) and signed by the informant should be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe which form is commonly called as "First Information Report" and which act of entering the information in the said form is known as registration of a crime or a case.

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 inquiry 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.

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 which 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 190(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 sine qua non for recording a first information report is that there must be information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence.

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.

49 Consequently, the condition that is sine qua non for recording an FIR u/s 154 of the Code is that there must be information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence. If any information disclosing a cognizable offence is led before an officer in charge of the police station satisfying the requirement of Section 154(1), 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. 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 information disclosing a cognizable offence.

Thus, the plain words of Section 154(1) of the Code have to be given their literal meaning.

There cannot be any dispute regarding the principles laid down and also the scheme and enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, in view of the law laid down aforesaid, in the opinion of this court, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence a duty has been cast upon the police authority to register FIR and to conduct investigation except as otherwise permitted specifically u/s 157 of Cr.P.C. In this view of the matter, respondents are hereby directed to go through the complaint made by the petitioner and after preliminary enquiry if it is found that the information discloses commission of cognizable offence then FIR be registered and the matter be investigated in accordance with law strictly after following the guidelines prescribed by Hon. Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra).

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.