Lalita vs state of UP
Supreme court or india,
The present official document|petition has been filed within the Supreme Court underneath Article thirty two of the Constitution by Lalita Kumari (minor) through her father for the supply of a writ of Habeas Corpus or directions of like nature for the protection of his girl United Nations agency has been seize.
The grievance of the petitioner is that on eleven.05.2008, a document was submitted to the officer in-charge of the station United Nations agency didn’t take any action on identical. Afterwards, AN FIR was registered by the Superintendent of Police and nonetheless, no steps were taken for apprehending the suspect or for recovery of the woman.
Lalita Kumari v. State of state & Ors., 2013
In The Supreme Court of India
Criminal Original Jurisdiction
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68 OF 2008
Bench : P Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan, Ranjana Prakash Desai, Ranjan Gogoi, S.A. Bobde
Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. & Ors., 2013, was delivered by a Five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Honorable Supreme Court on twelfth Nov 2013. within the gift charm, the appellant Lalita Kumari has appealed against the govt. of UP through a official document petition underneath Article thirty two of the Constitution.
Whether a officer is absolute to register AN FIR upon receiving any info with reference to the commission of a cognoscible offence underneath section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or the officer has the facility to conduct a preliminary inquiry so as to check the truthfulness of such info before registering the same?
The use of word ‘Shall’ in Section 154(1) indicates that there’s no discretion left to the officer except to register the FIR. In support of the proposition, reliance was placed on the subsequent choices, viz., B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal[i], M/s Hiralal Rattanlal v.State of U.P. and Anr.[ii], and Govindlal Chhaganlal Patel v. Agricultural manufacture Market Committee, Godhra and Ors[iii].
Section 154(1) mentions the word ‘Information’ while not prefixing the words ‘reasonable’ or ‘credible’ that indicates that genuineness or quality of the data isn’t a condition precedent for registration of case. In support of the proposition, reliance was placed onthe following choices, viz.,Ganesh Bhavan Patel and Another v. State of Maharashtra[iv],State of Harayana v. Bhajan Lal[v],and Aleque Padamsee et al v. Union of India and Others[vi].
States of state, state, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh contended that the registration of FIR is necessary u/s 154 of the CrPC, if the data discloses a cognoscible offence and no preliminary inquiry is allowed in such things.
States of Chhattisgarh and geographic area contended that a preliminary inquiry ought to be conducted before the registration of FIR on the subsequent basis:
The provisions of Section 154(1) should be scan within the light-weight of Articles fourteen, nineteen ANd twenty one that provides that no subject shall be subjected to malicious prosecution and an innocent shall not be concerned in an exceedingly criminal case. the freedom of a subject would be in peril if a officer take to register AN FIR, despite not being glad regarding the commission of a cognoscible offence.
No single provision of a statute is scan and understood in isolation, however the statute should be scan as a full. consequently, the provisions of Sections forty one, 57, 156, 157, 157, 167, 190, two hundred and 202 of the Code should be scan along.
Section 154(3) permits the litigator to approach the Superintendent of Police to register the FIR if identical is refused by the officer in-charge of the station. this means that the officer isn’t absolute to register the FIR if he has doubts regarding the truthfulness of the grievance.
The recording of FIR underneath Section 154 within the book is succeeding the entry within the General Diary, maintained in station. Therefore, info may be a document at the earliest within the General Diary, then if any preliminary inquiry is required, the officer conduct identical and thenceforth, the data is recorded as FIR.
Rule of purposive interpretation has been most popular over interpretation in Chairman Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines & Anr. v. Ramjee[vii].
The FIR may be a pertinent document that helps in setting the legal code in motion and getting info regarding the alleged criminal activity.
The first rule of interpretation of a statute is that the literal rule of interpretation. the utilization of word ‘Shall’ in Section 154(1) of the Code clearly shows the legislative intent that it’s necessary to register AN FIR if the data discloses the commission of a cognoscible offence. during this regard, reliance was placed on the observations in M/s Hiralal Rattanlal[viii] and B. Premanand[ix].
The word ‘complaint’ employed in previous Codes of 1861 and 1872 was replaced by the word ‘information’ because it happens within the gift Code of 1973. Also, it’s not prefixed by the words reasonable’ or ‘credible’ not like Section 41(1)(a) or (g). this means that the sole condition that is sin qua non for recording AN FIR is that there should be info revealing a cognoscible offence. during this regard, reliance was placed on Lallan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar[x].
A record within the General Diary u/s forty four of the Police Act, 1861 isn’t the fulfillment of the wants of Section 154 of the Code. In Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar[xi], it had been control that the registration of FIR should be worn out FIR Book/Register as General Diary contains solely the substance of every FIR being registered at the station. it’s additionally noted that visible of Article 254(1) of the Constitution, if there’s any inconsistency between the laws created by the Parliament (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) and also the laws created by the State Legislatures (The Police Act, 1861), the previous can prevail.
In joginder kumar vs state of up, that no arrest can be made on a mere allegation of commission of an offence against a person also, police officer can be tried and punished under section 166 for misusing power of arrest. Therefore section 154 of the code is not in violation of article 21 of the constitution.
The hon’ble supreme court gave various directions.
- It is mandatory to register an FIR under section 154 of the code, if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. If the information does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to ascertain whether information reveals any cognizable offence.
- If the inquiry discloses a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. If not, a copy of the entry of closure must be supplied. To the first informant forthwith and not later than one week.
- The completion of preliminary inquiry must not exceed 7 days and all the information related to the same shall be recorded in the general diary, maintained in the police station.