LALLAN CHAUDHARY AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 202 · Decided: 12-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
LALLAN CHAUDHARY AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 12, 2006 
[H.K. SEMA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3-Section 154-Registration of FJR-
Scope of-Complaint case-Making out several offences under IPC-
C Complaint endorsed to police for registration of crime-Cases registered by 
Police only under some of the offences as disclosed in the complaint case-
Charges framed-Charges accepted by Trial Court and Sessions Court-
High Court directed the Magistrate to initiate committal proceedings as per 
law-On appeal, held: High Court justly corrected the error committed by 
courts below-Grave miscarriage of justice has been committed by the Police 
D by not registering an FIR on the basis of offence disclosed in the complaint 
petition-Reliability, genuineness and credibility of the information are not 
the condition precedent for registering FIR. 
Respondent filed a complaint case before Judicial Magistrate against 
the appellants. In the complaint case offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 
E 448, 452, 323 and 395 IPC were disclosed. The Magistrate endorsed the 
complaint to the Police. Police registered the case only under Sections 452, 
380 and 323/34 IPC. Charge was framed only under Sections 452/323/34 
IPC leaving out offences under other Sections. Trial Court accepted the 
charges. District and Sessions Judge also endorsed the same. When the 
F matter was taken to High Court, it directed the concerned Magistrate to 
proceed in the matter in accordance with law as contained in Section 209 
Cr.P.C. 
In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that the complainant has 
not challenged the non-framing of charges under Section 498 IPC; and that 
G appellants were facing trial for 14 years and if committal proceedings are 
initiated by trying Magistrate, it would impede speedy trial and thus be violative 
of Article 21 of the Constitution oflndia. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
202 
-
LAL LAN CHAUDHAR Y v. STA TE OF BI HAR 
203 
HELD: 1.l. Section 154 Cr.P.C. casts a· statutory duty upon police ollicer A 
to register the case, as disclosed in the complaint, and then to proceed with 
the investigation. The mandate of Section 154 Cr.P.C. is that at the stage of 
registration of a crime of a case on the basis of the information disclosing a 
cognizable offence, the police officer concerned cannot embark upon an 
enquiry as to whether the information, laid by the informant is reliable and B 
genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the 
information is not relevant or credible. Reliability, genuineness and credibility 
of the information are not the conditions precedent for registering a case 
under Section 154 Cr.P.C. That can only be considered after registration of 
the case. 1206-B; E-F; DI 
Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Deihl) and Ors., 12006) 2 SCC 677, 
relied on. 
1.2. In criminal trial, investigation is proceeded by an FIR on the basis 
c 
of written complaint or otherwise disclosing the offence said to have been 
committed by the accused. In the present case, a grave miscarriage of justice D 
has been committed by the SHO of concerned Police Station by not registering 
an FIR on the basis of offence disclosed in the complaint petition. The 
concerned police officer is statutorily obliged to register the case on the basis 
of the offence disclosed in the complaint petition and proceed with investigation 
in terms of procedure contained under Sections 156 and 157 Cr.P.C. The FIR 
registered by the Police would clearly disclose that the complaint for offence 
under Section 395 IPC has been deliberately omitted and, therefore, no 
investigation, whatsoever, was conducted for the offence under Section 395 
IPC. 1206-H; 207-A-C) 
2. Trial Magistrate has failed to notice that in the complaint filed before 
E 
the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate an offence under Section 395 IPC has F 
been disclosed, amongst others. The Trial Magistrate accepted the charge 
framed under Sections 452/323/34 IPC mechanically without application of 
mind. The District and Sessions Judge also failed to take notice of the 
miscarriage of justice by the Trial Judge. It is, in these circumstances that 
the High Court has justly corrected the error committed by two Courts. 
G 
1207-C-D) 
3. 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.