Register FIR for cognizable offence complaint

New Delhi, Oct 15: In a judgement with wide ramifications for embattled Delhi Police Commissioner K K Paul, who is facing allegations of abettment to suicide by police inspector Devinder Manchanda, the Supreme Court has held the police are duty bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) if it receives information about the commission of a cognizable offence under section 154 CrPC.

The ruling was handed down by a bench comprising Justices H K Sema and P K Balasubramanyan while upholding the judgment of Patna High Court directing the trial court to try the accused persons for offence under section 395 IPC.

According to the allegations, nine accused persons who were appellants before the apex court formed an unlawful assembly on June 7, 1996 and forcibly entered the house of the complainant and indulged in 'loot-pat' and took away house articles valued at about Rs 19000. They gave a severe beating to the complainant when he protested against assaulting and teasing female members of the family.

SHO, P S Ghorasahan in district East Champaran refused to include section 395 IPC and filed the charge sheet only under section 452/323/34 IPC.

Holding that the conduct of the police has led to grave miscarriage of justice, the apex court in its judgment dated October 12 observed, "Section 154 of the Code thus casts a statutory duty upon police officer to register the case, as disclosed in the complaint, and then to proceed with the investigation. The mandate of section 154 is manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station, such police officer has no other option except to register the case on the basis of such information." Rejecting the plea of delay in trial, the court said,"No doubt, quick justice is sine-qua-non of Article 21 of the Constitution, but when grave miscarriage of justice as pointed out in the present case is committed by the police officer, the ground of delay of disposal of cases or otherwise would not scuttle the miscarriage of justice, similarly, we are of the view that in given facts and circumstances of this case, the accused themselves would be laible to be blamed for the delay if any,'' Dismissing the appeal of Lallan Choudhary and others, the apex court also said, ''Hence the police officer concerned is duty bound to register the case on receiving information disclosing cognisable offence. Genuineness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for registeration of a case. That can only be considered after the registeration of the case. The police officer concerned can not embark upon an inquiry as to whether the information laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the grounds that the information is not relevant or credible.''

UNI