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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more