Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 295 views

    Lalita Kumari V. State of UP, Case (Format)

    Uploaded by

    mansi daga
    The Supreme Court held that (1) registration of an FIR is mandatory under law if the information discloses a cognizable offense, and no preliminary inquiry is permitted, (2) if the information does not disclose a cognizable offense, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to determine if one is disclosed, and (3) if an inquiry discloses a cognizable offense, an FIR must be registered. The Court also outlined the limited scope and timeframe of preliminary inquiries.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lalita Kumari V. State of UP, Case (Format)

    Uploaded by

    mansi daga
    295 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court held that (1) registration of an FIR is mandatory under law if the information discloses a cognizable offense, and no preliminary inquiry is permitted, (2) if the information does not disclose a cognizable offense, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to determine if one is disclosed, and (3) if an inquiry discloses a cognizable offense, an FIR must be registered. The Court also outlined the limited scope and timeframe of preliminary inquiries.

    Original Title

    Lalita Kumari V. State of UP, Case (format).docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court held that (1) registration of an FIR is mandatory under law if the information discloses a cognizable offense, and no preliminary inquiry is permitted, (2) if the information does not disclose a cognizable offense, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to determine if one is disclosed, and (3) if an inquiry discloses a cognizable offense, an FIR must be registered. The Court also outlined the limited scope and timeframe of preliminary inquiries.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    295 views3 pages

    Lalita Kumari V. State of UP, Case (Format)

    Uploaded by

    mansi daga
    The Supreme Court held that (1) registration of an FIR is mandatory under law if the information discloses a cognizable offense, and no preliminary inquiry is permitted, (2) if the information does not disclose a cognizable offense, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to determine if one is disclosed, and (3) if an inquiry discloses a cognizable offense, an FIR must be registered. The Court also outlined the limited scope and timeframe of preliminary inquiries.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    LALITA KUMARI V. GOVT. OF U.P. & ORS. ....

    FACTS -
    The present writ petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution, has been filed by
    one Lalita Kumari (minor) through her father, viz., Shri Bhola Kamat for the
    issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus against the respondents for the protection of
    his minor daughter who has been kidnapped. The complaint in the said writ
    petition is that on 11.05.2008, a written report was submitted by the petitioner
    before the officer in-charge of the police station concerned who did not take any
    action on the same. Starting there, when the Superintendent of Police was moved,
    an FIR was registered. According to the petitioner, even from that point, steps were
    not taken either for detaining the accused or for the recovery of the minor girl
    child.

    ISSUE -
    The issues before the Constitution Bench was -
    Whether a police officer is bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon
    receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under
    Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or the police officer has the
    power to conduct a "preliminary inquiry" in order to test the veracity of such
    information before registering the same?

    H’ONORABLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT -


    (i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information
    discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is
    permissible in such a situation.
    (ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the
    necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain
    whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

    (iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be
    registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a
    copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith
    and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the
    complaint and not proceeding further.

    (iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable
    offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not
    register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.

    (v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the
    information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any
    cognizable offence.

    (vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will
    depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which
    preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
    (a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
    (b) Commercial offences
    (c) Medical negligence cases
    (d) Corruption cases
    (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal
    prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the
    matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
    The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may
    warrant preliminary inquiry.

    (vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a
    preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not
    exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the
    General Diary entry.

    (viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information
    received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable
    offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be
    mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to
    conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.

    You might also like