The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No.32 of 2022 Sri Kumar Devdas …. Petitioner Mr. A.K. Pandey, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ….
Legal Reasoning
Opposite Parties Mr. A.K. Sharma, AGA for State CORAM: JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 18.01.2022 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing mode. 2. Challenging the inaction of the police authority in not registering the FIR on the complaint of the Petitioner dated 09.12.2021, the Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court by filing CRLMP Petition. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that he has brought the alleged inaction part of the police authority to the notice of the Superintendent of Police, Kendrapara, Opposite Party No.2 through e-mail on 22.12.2021. 3. Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submits that it is not known whether any such grievance petition has been forwarded to the Opposite Party No.2 or not? However, he has assured this Court that if a direction is given to the Opposite Party No.2 prompt action shall be taken on the grievance petition of the of the Petitioner. Page 1 of 4 // 2 // 4. A bare reading of Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) reveals, which is quoted herein below:- “154. Information in cognizable cases.—(1) further information relating to the cognizable offence, if given orally to an Inspector- 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 where given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. A close scrutiny of Section 154, Cr.P.C. makes it mandatory on the part of the Police Officer to register an F.I.R. in the event, a complaint is received by him which discloses commission of cognizable offence. The use of word ‘shall’ makes it mandatory for the Police Officer to register a complaint disclosing a cognizable offence. Therefore, the aforesaid provision in Cr.P.C. leaves no room for doubt whether a complaint disclosing cognizable offence is required to be registered as an F.I.R. or not. Therefore, the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station cannot simply sit over the complaint which discloses commission of cognizable offence.” 5. With regard to inaction on the part of the Inspector-in-Charge of Police Station or any other Police Officer before whom a complaint is made either verbal or in writing and if such officer fails in his duty to register the same as an F.I.R. then the remedy has been provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Paragraph-31 of the judgment rendered in the matter of State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal, reported in (1992) Supp(I) SCC 335. Paragraph-31 of the said judgment has been quoted herein below:- “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 police officer concerned 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 Page 2 of 4 // 3 // reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate, subject to the proviso to Section 156. (As we have proposed to make a detailed discussion about the power of a police officer in the filed 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 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 an police officer subordinate to him in the manner provided by sub-section (3) of Section 154 of the Code.” 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court disposes of the CRLMP petition with a direction to the Petitioner to file a detailed grievance petition indicating his grievance therein before the Superintendent of Police, Kendrapara, Opposite Party No.2. In the event such a petition is filed within a period of two weeks from today along with an authenticated copy of this order, Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider the same in accordance with law and as per the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Paragraph 120.1 of the judgment in Lalita Kumari’s case (supra), which is extracted hereunder: “120.1. The 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.” 7. Further it is needless to mention here that pursuant to the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, in the event, the Opposite Party No.2 is satisfied that the complaint lodged by the Petitioner reveals cognizable offences, then immediate and prompt action shall Page 3 of 4 // 4 // be taken for registration of the FIR on the grievance petition of the Petitioner and appropriate action shall be taken thereof within a period of two months thereafter. 8. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the CRLMP stands disposed of. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID -19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a print out of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned Advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020, modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021, and Court’s Office Order circulated vide Memo Nos.514 and 515 dated 7th January, 2022. U.K.Sahoo (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Page 4 of 4