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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more