1. Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Anr. v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and others[(2012) 10 SCC 517] [Para 4]
2. Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and others v. V. Narayana Reddy and others[(1976) 3 SCC 252] [Para 18]
3. Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa[(2013) 10 SCC 705] [Para 19]
4. Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi[(2007) 12 SCC 496] [Para 20]
5. CREF Finance Ltd. v. Shree Shanthi Homes (P) Ltd.[(2005) 7 SCC 467] [Para 21]
6. Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.[(2014) 2 SCC 1] [Para 23]
2015 STPL(Web) 243 SC
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.)
PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER
Appellants
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.781 of 2012-Decided on 19-3-2015.
23. ...............Lalita Kumari v.
Govt. of U.P.[(2014) 2 SCC 1] in this regard. The larger Bench had posed the following two questions:-
"(i) Whether the immediate non-registration of FIR leads to scope for manipulation by the police
which affects the right of the victim/complainant to have a complaint immediately investigated
upon allegations being made; and
(ii) Whether in cases where the complaint/information does not clearly disclose the commission
of a cognizable offence but the FIR is compulsorily registered then does it infringe the rights of
an accused."
Answering the questions posed, the larger Bench opined thus:
"49. Consequently, the condition that is sine qua non for recording an FIR under Section 154 of
the Code is that there must be information and that information must disclose a cognizable
offence. If any information disclosing a cognizable offence is led before an officer in charge of
the police station satisfying the requirement of Section 154(1), the said police officer has no other
option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case
on the basis of such information. The provision of Section 154 of the Code is mandatory and the
officer concerned is duty-bound to register the case on the basis of information disclosing a
cognizable offence. Thus, the plain words of Section 154(1) of the Code have to be given their
literal meaning. "Shall"
........................
After so stating the constitution Bench proceeded to state that where a preliminary enquiry is necessary, it is not for the purpose for verification or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. After laying down so, the larger Bench proceeded to state:-
"120.6. 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.
27. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons.
Comments
Post a Comment