Lalita Kumari vs Govt. of U.P. & Ors 2013 (Case Summary)
The Lalita Kumari vs Govt. of U.P. & Ors underscored systemic issues of delayed FIR registration and police inaction in cognizable offences, prompting broader judicial scrutiny. The case strengthened victim rights and ensured prompt action in cognizable offences.
Facts of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.
- On 11th May 2008, a written complaint was submitted to the officer in charge of the police station, reporting the kidnapping of Lalita Kumari. However, the police failed to take prompt action.
- In light of the police inaction, the complaint was thereafter given to the Superintendent of Police and an FIR was subsequently registered.
- Despite the FIR being registered, the police failed to take effective steps, exacerbating concerns about their inaction.
- A Habeas Corpus petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, seeking the recovery and protection of Lalita Kumari and the court’s intervention against the ineffective police response.
Issues framed
- Whether a police officer is obligated to register a First Information Report (FIR) when the information discloses a cognizable offence, or whether they have the discretion to conduct a “preliminary inquiry” to test the veracity of such information before registering it?
- Whether it is mandatory to register a First Information Report (FIR) when the information discloses a cognizable offence?
Judgment of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.
The court analysed section 154, 156, 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), Section 44 of the Police Act, 1861, Article 21 and 254(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 166A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Supreme Court, in addressing the issue, extensively examined Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs the registration of First Information Report. The Court highlighted that the use of the word “shall” in Section 154(1) reflects the legislative intent that the police have no discretion in such cases. Emphasizing the mandatory nature of FIR registration when the information clearly discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.
The Court also recognized situations where the information provided does not clearly disclose a cognizable offence but necessitates further inquiry. In such cases, the police are permitted to conduct a preliminary inquiry only to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed, without ascertaining the veracity of the information. However, this inquiry must be exceptional, limited to specific circumstances—such as matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, cases of medical negligence, corruption, and delayed complaints—and should be completed within seven days. The reasons for any delay in completing the inquiry must be recorded.
All information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in the registration of an FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be reflected in the General Diary. The decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be recorded.
The Court emphasized that failure to register an FIR when mandated constitutes dereliction of duty, warranting disciplinary and legal action against the erring police officers. The judgment reaffirmed the primacy of the CrPC over conflicting state laws herein Police Act, 1861.
The Supreme Court held that the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if the information discloses a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such cases.