It is really in the fitness of things that while rising to the occasion for the welfare of the litigants, the Kalaburagi Bench of the Karnataka High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Vittal vs The PSI of Bableshwar Police Station in Writ Petition No. 201668 of 2023 (GM-Police) and Neutral Citation No. – NC: 2023:KHC-K:5678 and also cited in 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 294 which was finally pronounced on July 20, 2023 has most commendably directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to issue necessary circular/SOP to all (police) Station House Officers in respect of the most landmark directions issued by the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari’s case pertaining to the registration of FIRs when a cognizable offence is made out in the complaint and instruct them to follow it scrupulously. It is high time and Centre must amend the law and make it a serious, cognizable and non-bailable offence for the police if they dare to refuse to register an FIR. The moot question is: Why should men in uniform be given a long rope always and not held accountable for not doing their duty by which they are bound to do?
Needless to say, why should a common person suffer endlessly because of the police? Why should such person in police uniform not be dismissed from service if they dare to refuse to lodge an FIR? If persons in uniform in police are most strictly held accountable then no person in police uniform will ever dare to refuse to lodge FIR or dare to demand bribe for lodging an FIR! We have seen how just recently the Apex Court wondered aloud that in Manipur why police for 14 days had refused to lodge an FIR? There can be no gainsaying that this definitely requires prompt redressal and cannot be put on the backburner any longer!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Suraj Govindaraj of Kalaburagi Bench of the Karnataka High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;
a. Issue direction to the Respondent in the form of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent to register the FIR against the accused as per Annexure-A and C in the interest of justice and equity.
b. This Hon’ble Court may further pleased to issue any other order/writ for the end of justice.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that, “The grievance of the petitioner is that the complaint made by the petitioner on 18.11.2022 against certain persons has not been registered as a FIR by the respondent-police and no action has been taken thereon. A perusal of the complaint dated 18.11.2022 indicates that the complaint made was that there was an assault on the daughter-in-law of the petitioner/complainant, her cell phone was taken from her, she was abused and was threatened with death. The same amounts to cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code.”
It is worth noting that the Bench enunciates in para 3 that, “The Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014)2 SCC 1 more particularly para 120 thereof, has held as under;
Conclusion/Directions
120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
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.
120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months’ delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
120.7. While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
120.8. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench points out in para 4 stating that, “It was but required for the police officer to register an FIR when the complaint discloses a cognizable offense. The complaint having been filed on 18.11.2022 and FIR not having been registered till date is impermissible and would also amount to dereliction of duty. This is not a stray case, there are many cases of the like nature which have come up before this Court and this Court has applied the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari’s case and directed the registration of the FIR.”
Most significantly, we see that the the Bench then mandates in para 5 holding that, “The Director General of Police is directed to issue necessary circular/SOP to all Station House Officers in respect of the directions issued in Lalita Kumari’s case at para 120 produced hereinabove with instructions to follow them scrupulously, the Circular/SOP to be issued both in English and Kannada, including the translation of para 120 in Kannada. The SOP to also indicate the nature of disciplinary proceedings that would be taken up if not followed.”
Adding more to it and for the sake of clarity, the Bench then further hastens to add in para 6 directing that, “The Direct General Police is also directed to forward a Kannada translated copy of the entire judgment to all Station House Officers, so that they are able to understand the judgement and what is expected of them in Kannada, if they are not able to understand the same in English.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 7 of this notable judgment that, “Hence, I pass the following;
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. Respondent police are directed to register FIR against the accused in pursuance of the complaint dated 18.11.2022 and take up investigation of the matter.
iii. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the complaint. The investigation will be conducted independently on the basis of evidence collected.
iv. Though the above matter is disposed re-list on 29.8.2023 for reporting compliance by the Director General of Police.”
All said and done, we must definitely applaud what has been held by the Kalaburagi Bench of the Karnataka High Court in this leading case so elegantly, eloquently and effectively which must be certainly implemented also most strictly. But this alone is certainly not enough! Suffice it to say, it is high time and Centre and our law makers must now take the requisite steps to make the non registration of FIR a non-bailable and cognizable offence and those persons in uniform who refuse to lodge an FIR have no prima facie case to be allowed to continue to be in police!
The billion dollar question is: How long will police still not be held accountable? How long will they be allowed to behave as per their own whims and fancies and yet still not be held accountable? How long will they be given a long rope and get away scot free even after not lodging an FIR by shamelessly refusing to do so due to which the victim of a crime is further made to undergo huge mental stress and in many cases have to shell out huge money just for registration of FIR which seldom is noticed even though we all know of it happening on a large scale? It is high time and the police reforms as directed by the Apex Court in Prakash Singh case way back in 2006 must be implemented at least now so that the police force gains more credibility and more respect in the eyes of the public for whom they are meant actually!
Sanjeev Sirohi