Skip to main content

Failure to register FIR by police

In C. R. M. 4792 of 2019, Abdul Khaleque vs State Of West Bengal, taking strong exception to the failure of the then Inspector-In-Charge of a police station to register an FIR even after an order of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Calcutta High Court observed that where the judicial authority issues direction for registration of FIR under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, requirement to hold preliminary enquiry is obviated and it is the mandate of law that such FIR must be promptly registered. Failure to do so constitutes a constitutional tort arising out of breach of the fundamental right of access to justice for victims of crime.

In Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that prompt registration of FIR is imperative for the following reasons:-
97.1. (a) It is the first step to “access to justice” for a victim.
97.2. (b) It upholds the “rule of law” inasmuch as the ordinary person brings
forth the commission of a cognizable crime in the knowledge of the State.
97.3. (c) It also facilitates swift investigation and sometimes even prevention of the crime. In both cases, it only effectuates the regime of law.
97.4. (d) It leads to less manipulation in criminal cases and lessens incidents of “antedated” FIR or deliberately delayed FIR.

In order to ensure that such breaches of statutory duty do not occur in future and the constitutional obligation to ‘uphold rule of law’ by promptly registering FIRs pursuant to directions given by learned Magistrates under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are effectively  enforced, we direct as follows:-

1) order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure passed by the learned Magistrate directing registration of FIR shall be positively dispatched from the court concerned to the appropriate police station on the day on which such order is passed and FIR shall be drawn up at the police station and not later than 24 hours from the date of receipt of such order;
2) Failure to do so shall attract disciplinary proceedings and also penal consequences under Section 166B of the Indian Penal Code particularly in sex offences;
3) Principal Secretary (Home), Government of West Bengal and Director General of Police, West Bengal shall take immediate steps to incorporate the aforesaid directions in the police regulations so that the discharge of official duties of police officers in the State of West Bengal are accordingly, regulated and the fundamental right to access to justice of victims of crime is not rendered illusory by gross dereliction of official duty by law enforcement agencies as in the present case.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more