LexALEQUE PADAMSEE AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ALEQUE PADAMSEE AND ORS. y' v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. JULY 18, 2007 B [DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, P.K. BALASUBRAMA.NYAN AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: c Article 32-Writ petition-Stating faiiure of police to register an FIR- Prayer to issue writ to police officials to register FIR and to competent authority to accord sanction uls 196 Cr.P.C.-Held, police on information received about alleged commission of a cognizable offence has to register the ~ FIR-In case it does not do so, the modalities to be adopted are as set out r- D ins~ 190 read withs. 200 Cr. P.C.-Directions in this regard issued-A writ .. ; petition in such cases is not to be entertained-As regards non-grant of t .. sanction in terms of s. 196 Cr.P.C., it is/or the Government concerned to deal with the prayer-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s. 190 r/w s. 200 and s. 196. E The petitioners filed the instant writ petitions alleging inaction of official respondents and not registering the FIR lodged against respondent nos. 5 and 6. It was further stated that respondent no. 6 was approached for according sanction in terms of s. 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 but there was inaction of the authority cpncerned in this regard too. .. F .. ~ On the question: whether a writ can be issued to the police authorities to register an FIR. Disposing of the writ petitions, the Court G HELD: 1.1. The correct position of law is that whenever any information is received by the police about the alleged commission of an offence which is a cognizable one, the police officials ought to register the FIR. If the police does not do it, the remedy available is by filing a complaint before the " .,,_ Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence, and the H 390 -f ALEQUE PADAMSEE v. U.0.1. 391 v · modalities are as set out ins. 190 read withs. 200 of the Code of Criminal A Procedure, 1973. A writ petition in such cases is not to be entertained. f Paras 5 and 71 (394-F, G, 8, DJ All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees' Union (Reg) through its President v. Union of India and Ors., 119961 8 Supp. SCR 138=11996111 SCC S82; Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra, f2004J 4 B Supp. SCR 772,;,,f2004J 7 SCC 768; Minu Kumari and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 12006) 3 SCR I086=f2006J 4 SCC 359 and Hari Singh v. State of UP., 120061 5 SCC 733=120061 5 SCC 733, relied on. Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors., 120061 2 SCR 403=AIR (2006) SC 1322 and Lal/an Chaudhary and Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR (2006) C SC 3376, referred to. 1.2. The Magistrate, on receipt of the complaintu/s 190 r/w s. 200 of the Code, is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate, after recording evidence, finds a prima D ~ facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is emp0wered to direct the police concerned to investigate into offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded primafacie discloses an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the E offence and could issue process to the accused. In view of this settled position of law, the following directions are issued: (I) If any person is aggriend by the inaction of the police officials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and obsen·ed. (2) It is open to any person aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials to adopt the remedy in terms of the aforesaid provisions. (3) So far as non-grant of sanction aspect is concerned, it is for the concerned Government to deal with the prayer expeditiously. (Paras 5 and 8) (394-C, D; 395-D, El CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: .Writ Petition (Crl.) No. l l-15 of2003. ·· (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). F G H 392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 8 S.C.R. , A S. Ganesh, Apama Bhat, P. Ramesh Kumar and Anuradha Singh for the ; y Petitioners. \' Gopal Subrantanian, ASG., V.N. Raghupathy, Hemantika Wahi, Sunita Sharma, T. Srinivasa Murthy, Sushma Suri, Sushi! Karanjakar and Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the Respondents. B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ,..
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.