Introduction
The term “First Information Report” (F.I.R.) is not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). It is the first report submitted to the police officer in relation to his action, and it is the basis for the investigation. In Ravi Kumar vs. State of Punjab[1] the Supreme Court of India (SC) defined F.I.R as a report detailing the commission of a cognizable crime. It can be made by the complainant, the complainant's agent, or any other person with knowledge of the commission of the offence. The information obtained by the police officer must be recorded in accordance with Section 154 of the CrPC.
Lalita Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 4 SCC 1
This landmark case concerns the mandatory registration of the police officer’s First Information Report. In this case, Lalita Kumari (Minor) filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution through her father Shri Bhola Kamat for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus against the officer-in-charge of the police station, who did not take any action. The petitioner claimed that even after orders were issued by the relevant courts to register the case, the police did not take the necessary steps, and that it was only after the matter was brought to the attention of the Superintendent of Police that the F.I.R was registered.
On the other hand, there are innumerable cases, where F.I.R’s are registered immediately, copies are made over to the complainant on the same day, investigation proceeds with supersonic jet speed, immediate steps are taken for apprehending the accused and recovery of the kidnapped persons and the properties which were subject matter of theft or dacoity. The Police must register the case immediately upon production of copy of the orders and make over copy of the F.I.R to the complainants, within 24 hours. The Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System headed by Dr. Justice V.S. Malimath also noticed the plight faced by several people due to non-registration of FIRs and recommended that action should be taken against police officers who refuse to register such information and will be awarded stringent punishment.
Analysis of the case
Analysis reveals that the number of F.I.R’s not registered is roughly equal to the number of F.I.R’s actually registered. Keeping in mind the NCRB figures, which show that a large number of F.I.R’s are not registered every year, this is a clear violation of the victims’ rights. Criminalization leads to a short-term dilution of the rule of law, but it also has a long-term negative impact on the rule of law because people lose respect for it. Thus, the non-registration of such a large number of F.I.R’s results in a state of lawlessness in society.
As a result, a delicate balance must be maintained between the interests of society and the protection of an individual’s liberty. To achieve speedy dispensation of justice, a balance must be struck between speedy trial and fair trial, and the principles of natural justice cannot be compromised. Individual liberty must be protected by the law. Even a single minute of detention would be an infringement on liberty. According to this, one of the primary goals of the Code is to protect the interests of the poor. Making mandatory the registration of information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence would benefit society, particularly the poor in rural and remote areas of the country. As a result, registration of F.I.R by a police officer is required.
Judgement
The 5-judge bench of Justice P. Sathasivam, Justice B.S. Chauhan, Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, and Justice S.A. Bobde ruled that if the information reveals the commission of a cognizable offence, registration of an F.I.R is mandatory under Section 154 of the CrPC, and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation except in certain cases. Furthermore, if the information received by the police officer is not about a cognizable offence but indicates one, a preliminary investigation is permitted to determine whether or not a cognizable offence occurred. In addition, action must be taken against police officers who fail to discharge their duties, such as filing a FIR, if the information received is about a cognizable offence.
Finally, the legislative authors did not use terms like “reasonable complaint” and “credible information” in Section 154 (1). The absence of these words indicates that the ‘reasonability’ or 'credibility' of the received information is not a prerequisite for filing a case, and that the use of the word "shall" does not imply that police have no discretion.
[1] CRR-1096 of 2020(O&M)
Witten By,
Kalpana Nailwal,
Intern, Chanchlani Law World
Comments