LexLALITA KUMARI versus GOVERNMENT OF U.P. & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2012] 1 S.C.R. 1066 LALITA KUMAR! v. GOVERNMENT OF U.P. & OTHERS (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68 of 2008) FEBRUARY 27, 2012 [DALVEER BHANDARI, T.S. THAKUR AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: s. 154 - Information in cognizable cases - Officer in charge of police station concerned - Obligation of, to register the FIR - The issue: whether u/s 154 Cr.P.C., a police officer is bound to register an FIR when a cognizable offence is made 0 out or he (police officer) has an option, discretion or latitude of conducting some kind of preliminary enquiry before registering the FIR - Referred to Constitution Bench. Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 68 of 2008 was filed praying for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus to produce a girl E aged about six years who had been kidnapped from her house and in spite of her father complaining of the incident to the police station concerned, his FIR was registered after one month from the date of the incident. Even after registration of the FIR against the named F persons, the police did not take any action to trace the minor girl. In the instant matters, the issue for consideration before the Court was: "whether under Section 154 G Cr.P.C., a police officer is bound to register an FIR when a cognizable offence is made out or he (police officer) has an option, discretion or latitude of conducting some kind of preliminary enquiry before registering the FIR?" The Court passed a comprehensive order showing H 1066 LALITA KUMAR I v. GOVERNMENT OF U.P. 1067 its concern in respect of the matter of non-registration of A FIR in a case of cognizable offence and directed notice to issue to Chief Secretaries of the States and Administrators of the Union Territories. Consequently, various State Governments and Union Territories filed comprehensive affidavits and advanced divergent B arguments as regards the interpretation of s.154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Referring the matters to a Constitution Bench, the Court HELD: 1.1 On a careful analysis of various judgments delivered by this Court in the last several decades, it is quite evident that different Benches of this Court have taken divergent views in different cases. In c the instant case also, after this Court's notice, the Union D · of India, the States and the Union Territories have taken or expressed totally divergent views about the interpretation of s.154 Cr.P.C. This Court also carved out a special category in the case of medical doctors where preliminary enquiry had been postulated before E registering an FIR. It has been submitted that the CBI Manual also envisages some kind of preliminary enquiry before registering the FIR. The issue which has arisen for consideration in these cases is of great public importance. [Para 108-111] [1116-F-H; 1117-A-D] F 1.2 In view of the divergent opinions in a large number of cases decided by this Court, it has become extremely important to have a clear enunciation of law and adjudication by a larger Bench of this Court for the benefit of all concerned - the courts, the investigating G agencies and the citizens. Consequently, these matters be referred to a Constitution Bench of at least five Judges of this Court for an authoritative judgment. [Para 112- 113] [1117 -D-F] H 1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 1 S.C.R. A State of M.P. v. Santosh Kumar 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 548 = 2006 (6) SCC 1; Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another 2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 323 = 2004(6) SCC 422; Aleque Padamsee and Others v. Union of India and Others 2007 (8) SCR 390 = (2007) 6 SCC 171; Ramesh B Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others 2006 (2) SCR 403 = (2006) 2 SCC 677; Hiralal Rattan/al etc.etc. v. State of U.P. and Another etc.etc. 1973 (2) SCR 502 =1973(1) SCC 216; B. Premanand and Others v. Mohan Koikal and Others 2011 (3) SCR 932 = (2011) 4 SCC 266; Govindlal Chhf)ganla/ c Patel v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Godhra and Others 1976 (1) SCR 451 = 1975 (2) SCC 482; Mis Amar Nath Om Prakash and others etc. v. State of Punjab and Others 1985 (2) SCR 72 = (1985) 1 SCC 345; Hameed Joharan (dead) and others v. Abdul Salam (dead) by Lrs. and D Others 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 469 = (2001) 7 SCC 573; The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi 1964 SCR 71 =AIR 1964 SC 221; H.N. Rishbud and Jnder Singh v. The State of Delhi 1955 SCR (1) 1150; Damodar v. State of Rajasthan 2003 (3
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.