Introduction
A First Information Report (FIR) is a written document meticulously prepared by the police upon receiving information pertaining to the occurrence of a cognizable offence. Cognizable offenses are those for which the police are empowered to take action without the need for a warrant.
In the wake of a civil or criminal incident, the common course of action for most individuals is to initiate the filing of a First Information Report (FIR). However, what happens when the police fail to promptly register an FIR, or significant delays occur in the process? Such delays can potentially lead to the deterioration of critical evidence, thereby undermining the strength of the case. So, what measures can be taken to prevent such situations? For answers to these pressing questions, read on.
Landmark Judgement of Sindhu Janak Nagargoji v. The State of Maharashtra (2023)
Brief Facts of the case:
In this case, the complainant’s brother fell victim to a tragic murder. Promptly, the complainant initiated the process of filing an FIR, specifically under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which addresses the “punishment for murder.” Much to the complainant’s dismay, it later came to light that the police officer responsible had failed to register the FIR as expected. In response to this disheartening revelation, the complainant took the matter to the Bombay High Court, lodging a writ petition. The petition contended that the delay in registering the FIR amounted to a violation of fundamental rights. Regrettably, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petition.
With the High Court’s ruling leaving them unsatisfied, the complainant decided to escalate the matter directly to the Supreme Court. The central argument put forth was that the right to have an FIR registered by the police stands as a fundamental right of every citizen.
Final Judgement:
In delivering its judgement, the Supreme Court made reference to the landmark case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P and Others, a significant ruling handed down on 12th November 2013. The Court proceeded to encapsulate and reaffirm the essential principles as laid down in the Lalita Kumari case:
1. Following an inquiry, if a cognizable offence is evident, it is incumbent upon the police to register the FIR. In the event that such an offence is not established, a closure report must be filed. The rationale behind not filing the FIR must be meticulously documented in the station’s general diary, with a copy of this explanation furnished to the complainant within a week.
2. Should a cognizable offence be unequivocally discerned, yet the police fail to register an FIR, strict and consequential action should be taken against the responsible police officer.
3. The police are constitutionally empowered to determine whether a cognizable offence has transpired or not.
4. The police are held to strict temporal constraints; the reasons for not registering an FIR should be disclosed to the complainant within a week.
5. Whether the application or complaint pertains to the registration of an FIR or the initiation of a preliminary inquiry, it is mandatory for both to be succinctly recorded with accompanying reasons in the general diary of the police station, serving as evidentiary documentation.
Conclusion
The case underscores the principle that any individual who falls prey to a civil or criminal offence has the inherent right to demand the registration of an FIR. The Lalita Kumari guidelines, reemphasized through Sindhu Janak Nagargoji, underscore the necessity for vigilance and transparency throughout the process. It imposes an unequivocal duty on police officers to dutifully carry out their responsibilities. Furthermore, it distinctly distinguishes between cognizable and non-cognizable offences, thereby ensuring the protection of citizens’ rights while upholding the imperatives of law and order.
For understanding more such complex law in simple ways, stay connected with www.thelegalshots.com .
If doubts still persist, contact our Legal Experts athttps://thelegalshots.com/legal-opinion/
