The Hindu : National : Police cannot refuse or delay FIR: court

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Oct 26, 2006
ePaper

National

National

Police cannot refuse or delay FIR: court

Legal Correspondent

Non-reliability of information not a ground for refusal

New Delhi: The police cannot refuse or delay registration of the first information report (FIR) on a complaint of offence or crime, the Supreme Court has held.

"The police officer concerned is duty bound to register the case on receiving information disclosing a cognisable offence. Genuineness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent to registration of a case. That can be considered only after the registration of the case as disclosed in the complaint," said a Bench comprising Justices H.K. Sema and P.K. Balasubramanyan.

Writing the judgment, Justice Sema said: "The mandate of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. is that at the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing cognisable offence, the police officer concerned cannot embark upon an enquiry into whether the information is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not relevant or credible."

In the instant case, a complaint was lodged against Lallan Chaudhary and eight others in Bihar for offences under the Indian Penal Code. According to the complainant, police officer Yogendra Prasad refused to register an FIR. He preferred a complaint before the sessions judge, who forwarded it to the police. Thereafter the FIR was registered but most of the offences alleged were not included. The trial court and the district and sessions judge accepted the charge as framed but on appeal, the Patna High Court directed the magistrate to include the additional charges.

Dismissing the appeal by Mr. Chaudhary and others against that order, the Bench said the police, by not investigating the serious offences, committed a grave miscarriage of justice. On the contention that the case had been pending for 14 years, it said, "no doubt, quick justice is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution [right to life and liberty] but, when a grave miscarriage of justice is committed by the police officer, the ground of delay of disposal of cases or otherwise would not scuttle the miscarriage of justice. The accused themselves are to blame for the delay, if any."

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National