(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.4 to register the FIR on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner at Annexure-C dated 28.12.2016 and hold enquiry in accordance with law.)
1. The unfortunate citizen of the State is before this Court for Writ of Mandamus for non-registration of F.I.R. directing the Respondent No.4 to register the FIR on the basis of complaint filed by him as per Annexure-C dated 28.12.2016 and hold enquiry in accordance with law.
I. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.222 of Naribole village, Jewargi taluka, Kalaburagi district totally measuring 14 acres 18 guntas along with one Tippanna S/o Mareappa Talwar and the said land being cultivating by the petitioner by raising thor dal, jawar crops. The RTC extracts produced to show that he is owner and in possession of the said property as per Annexure-A.
3. The things stood thus, one Sharanappa S/o Sabanna filed an application before the Tahasildar claiming that he is owner of the said land. The Tahasildar without notice to the petitioner in connivance with the officers got his name entered in the Record of Rights. The said order of Tahasildar was subject matter of the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Kalaburagi. The Assistant Commissioner, Kalaburagi after hearing both the parties was pleased to set aside the order passed by the Tahasildar and directed to restore the name of petitioner and the said order has been reached finality. In spite of the said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the said Sharanappa was interfered with the cultivation of the land by the petitioner and during the year 2016 he has cultivated jawar in his land and apprehended his crops may be harvested by said Sharanappa with the help of goonda elements. Hence, he made an application on 16.12.2016 to the Tahasildar requesting to provide protection for harvesting his crops. Accordingly the Tahasildar addressed a letter to the Jewargi police directing them to provide police protection to them on 20.06.2016 as per Annexure-B.
4. In spite of the said direction issued by the Tahasildar, the 4th Respondent /Jewargi police has not provided police protection. In the meanwhile the said Sharanappa along with 13 other persons entered the field of petitioner on 28.12.2016 along with the Punjab harvesting machine and got harvested the yield by threatening the petitioner and his family members with lethal weapons and took away the harvested crops. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach PSI Jewargi/4th Respondent and lodged a complaint to take action against accused persons and return his harvested crops. The complaint copy also submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Kalaburagi, Inspector General of Police, Kalaburagi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Grameena, Kalaburagi, Circle Inspector of Police, Jewargi. The copy of the complaint is produced as per Annexure-C.
5. Since 4th Respondent has not taken any action on the basis of the complaint either by the Tahasildar or the PSI, Jewargi, the petitioner once again addressed his grievance to the Superintendent of Police, Kalaburagi referring to the above mentioned complaint made by him, but no action has been taken in this regard. The copy of the complaint addressed to the Superintendent of Police on 30.12.2016 produced as per Annexure-D.
6. On the basis of the complaint by the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner, Kalaburagi addressed a letter dated 16.01.2017 to the Superintendent of Police Kalaburagi and requested to look into the complaint of the petitioner dated 30.12.2016 and take necessary action as per law. The copy of the said letter by the Deputy Commissioner addressed to the Superintendent of Police on 16.01.2017 is produced at Annexure-E.
7. It is further case of the petitioner that in spite of direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner, even the Superintendent of Police did not take any action on the basis of complaint filed by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner waiting for a month and again addressed a complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 06.02.2017 reiterating the complaint averments stated that the yield being harvested and taken away by Shranappa and others by threatening him and his family members. The copy was also sent to Hon’ble Prime Minister, Hon’ble Home Minister, New Delhi, Chief Minister of Karnataka, Home Minister of Karnataka, President of Human Rights Commission, Bengaluru, Lokayukta Kalaburagi, Additional Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Inspector General of Police, Kalaburagi and the Deputy Commissioner, Kalaburagi. The copy of the said complaint dated 06.02.2017 produced at Annexure-F.
8. On the basis of the said complaints, copies to authorities including the Chief Minister, Additional Secretary of the Chief Minister addressed a letter to the petitioner on 16.02.2017 informing him that the Superintendent of Police, Kalaburagi has been directed to take action against the officer who refused to accept the complaint and also look into the complaint of the petitioner. The copy of the said communication by the Additional Secretary of the Chief Minister is produced as per Annexure-G.
9. The copy of the said complaint was also addressed by the petitioner to the Human Rights Commission and the Assistant Registrar of Human Rights Commission addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police directed to take action, since the matter is very serious and also hold enquiry and take action in accordance with law. The copy of the said order passed by the Human Rights Commission is produced as per Annexure-H.
10. The Superintendent of Police, Kalaburagi addressed a letter dated 22.02.2017 to the Circle Inspector of Police, Jeweargi referring to the letter of Home Ministry and the letter of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kalaburagi seeking explanation as to why no action is being taken on the complaint filed by the petitioner and further direction was given to initiate enquiry about the complaint filed by the petitioner. The copy of the said letter dated 22.02.2017 is produced as per Annexure-J.
11. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kalaburagi addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Kalaburagi on 09.03.2017 and requested to personally look into the matter and initiate action as per the complaint of the petitioner dated 06.02.2017 and the said letter is also sent to the petitioner. The copy of the said letter dated 09.03.2017 is produced as per Annexure-K.
12. Inspite of the directions issued by the higher authorities stated supra, the 4th Respondent has not registered the FIR on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for Writ of Mandamus as prayed for.
II. RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.
13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
14. Sri Naresh V. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the inaction of the 4th Respondent in not registering the FIR is contrary to the settled principles of law and in violation of natural justice. He further contended that the act of the 4th Respondent refusing to register the FIR on the basis of the complaint lodged by petitioner is nothing but clear violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, thereby infringement of rights guaranteed under the Constitution. He further contended that the 4th Respondent who is a custodian of general public has to register the case as soon as complaint received. Inspite of the fact the petitioner has approached 4th Respondent more than ten times and requested to register F.I.R., he has not registered the same. The conduct of the 4th Respondent amounts dereliction of duty as police officer. He further contended that inspite of direction issued by the higher authorities namely Taluka Magistrate, District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, Human Rights Commission as well as directions issued by the Additional Secretary to Chief Minister, till today the 4th Respondent has not registered the FIR. Therefore, he sought to allow the petition by imposing heavy costs on the 4th Respondent for unnecessarily driving, petitioner before this Court.
15. Per contra Sri Syed Habeeb, learned Government Advocate for the respondents sought to justify the action of the 4th Respondent in not registering the FIR on the basis of the complaint by the petitioner. He further cont
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
nded that in terms of the order passed by the Superintendent of Police dated 13.08.2014 and dated 17.01.2015 he has to comply the orders passed by the higher authorities and guidelines issued by them in connection with registration of FIR. In view of the said letters he has informed the petitioner, for which the petitioner has not responded. Unless the complainant and Station House Officer signed the documents, FIR cannot be registered. Inspite of the repeated intimation by the 4th Respondent, the petitioner never come to police station and did not approach the 4th Respondent to register the FIR and 4th Respondent never refuse to register and non registration of FIR on the complaint of petitioner is neither intentional nor wanton but bonafide reasons. Learned Government Advocate sought to reply upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu V/S State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 409. He further submits that if a petitioner has a grievance that his complaint has not been registered by the police officer, then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under section 154(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure with an application in writing. Even if it does not yield any satisfactory result and his grievance still persists then the petitioner can approach Magistrate by filing PCR under section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the Writ Petition.16. This Court by an order dated 02.06.2017 requested the learned Additional SPP to assist the Court in view of serious controversy involved in the present Writ Petition Sri Prakash Yeli, learned Additional SPP representing the 4th Respondent along with learned Additional Government Advocate fairly submitted that it is the duty of the Station House Officer to register the FIR on the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner. He also invited the attention of the Court that under the provisions of Sections 154 and 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the 4th Respondent ought to have registered F.I.R. and should have investigated the case. Therefore, he submits that the 4th Respondent was not justified in refusing to register the F.I.R. on the basis of complaint lodged by the petitioner. The said fair submission is placed on record.III. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION.17. In view of rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, the points that arise for consideration in the present Writ Petition are:-(1) Whether the petitioner has made out a case for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th Respondent to register the FIR on the basis of complaint by the petitioner dated 28.12.2016?(2) Whether the 4th Respondent Sub Inspector of Police is justified in refusing to register the FIR on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner dated 28.12.216 inspite of directions issued by the higher authorities namely, Taluka Magistrate. District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, Human Rights Commission as well as the Additional Secretary of the Chief Minister of Karnataka in the facts and circumstances of the case?IV. CONSIDERATION AND RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF CR.P.C.18. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties to the lis and perused the entire material on record carefully.19. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.222 of Naribole village, Jewargi taluka and one Sharanappa and 13 others who have illegally trespassed the land of the petitioner on 28.12.2016 alongwith Punjab harvesting machine and got harvested the yield by threatening the petitioner and his family members with lethal weapons and took away the harvested crops. Therefore, he lodged a complaint to the PSI Jewargi, but the PSI has not registered the FIR. Therefore, he approached the Tahasildar, Deputy Commissioner, Superintendent of Police, Human Rights Commission as well as the Chief Minister of the State. Inspite of the directions issued by all the authorities stated supra, the 4th Respondent refused to register the FIR.20. The State Government/Respondents have not filed objections denying the allegations made in the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner.21. After hearing both the parties at length, this Court by an order dated 28.12.2017 passed detailed order and directed the 4th Respondent Sub Inspector of Police to file his personal affidavit as to why he has not registered the case on the basis of complaint filed by the petitioner and as to why he has disobeyed the directions issued by the higher authorities stated supra.22. In view of the said order passed by this Court, when the matter was posted on 02.06.2017, the 4th Respondent has failed his personal affidavit stating the circumstances under which he could not register the FIR as there is no technical support to register in police. I.T. which reads as under:I, Pradeep S. Bhise, age: 35 years, Working as Sub Inspector of Police, Jewargi Police Station, Tq. Jewargi, Dist. Kalaburagi, do hereby state on oath as under;2. I am the 4th Respondent in the above petition and well acquainted with the facts of the case. Hence I am swearing to this affidavit.3. That, the Hon’ble Court directed me to file affidavit as to why I could not register the FIR on receipt of complaint and has not obeyed the directions issued by the higher authorities in that regard.4. That it is respectfully submitted that I could not register the FIR on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 28.12.2016 due to insufficient details as to date and time of offence. Because, in the absence date and time of offence FIR could not be registered as there is no technical support to register the same in police I.T.5. I humbly submit that, as a Station House Officer, I have to comply the orders of my higher authorities in respect of guidelines issued by them in connection with the registering of F.I.R. The copies of letters issued by my higher authorities are produced herewith and marked as Annexure-R.1 & R.2. Accordingly I informed to the petitioner for which the petitioner went by saying that he would come with new complaint by mentioning the date and time of offence. Therefore, he has not approached me by filing new complaint. I have been directed by the higher authorities through communication to take action as per law about the complaint lodged by the petitioner. On receipt of directions from the higher authorities, I have intimated the petitioner to come to police station to register the FIR as his signature is necessary to register the FIR, but he did not approach me stating that he would get register the FIR by the higher officials. I have never refused to register the FIR. The non registration of FIR on the complaint is neither intentional nor wanton but for bonafide reasons.6. If I committed any mistake in this process I will seek unconditional apology before this Hon’ble Court and further I undertake not doing such things in my entire service. Hence, I prayed to this Hon’ble Court to excuse me and dropped the proceedings alleged against me, in the interest of justice and equity.23. In response to the said affidavit filed by the 4th Respondent, the petitioner has filed his personal affidavit before this Court today i.e., on 05.06.2017 and denied the contents made in para Nos.4 and 5 of the affidavit of the 4th Respondent Sub Inspector of Police and specifically contended that 4th Respondent never told that he should file fresh complaint nor asked him about mentioning the date and time in the complaint nor he was asked to sign, even though he had approached them about ten times, which reads as under;I, Sri Mareappa S/o Tippanna, age: 46 years, Occ: Agriculture, r/o Naribole village, Tq. Jewargi, Dist. Kalaburagi, now at Kalaburagi do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under;1. I am the petitioner in the above petition. I am well conversant with the facts and circumstances. Hence I am swearing to this affidavit.2. That, the Respondent No.4 has filed an affidavit before this Hon’ble Court on 02/06/2017 and the contention taken by him at Para 4 and 5 of the said affidavit as against me is all false and baseless. I never told that I would file a fresh complaint nor they asked me about not mentioning of date and time in the complaint nor I was asked to sign even though I had approached them about 10 times.3. Infact on the date of incident i.e., on 28.12.2016 itself I approached the Respondent No.4 & 5 to register the case against the persons mentioned in the complaint and I waited the whole day in the police station requesting them to come to spot and conduct panchanama. After waiting till evening I was asked to come the next day for registering the FIR. I again went the next day i.e. on 29.12.2016 but there was no response from them nor they registered the FIR stating that they have other urgent work to do. So I being in state of Shock for having lost my yield which was the only source of income for me and my family and on advise of well wishers sent the copy of the complaint through Regd post to the SP office on 30.12.2016 which is at Annexure-D. I approached the SP office on 02.01.2017 requesting him to direct the Jewargi police to register the FIR on the basis of my complaint and accordingly the Annexure-D was endorsed by the SP and handed over to me to give to the PSI at Jewargi and informed the PSI on phone to register the case and asked me to approach the Jewargi police.4. Accordingly I went back to the Police Station at Jewargi and handed over Annexure D to them. Inspite of receiving Annexure D no action was taken by the Jewargi police so again I approached the SP office two to three times however the SP was out of station so I regularly approached the Jewargi Police station almost 10 times but no case was registered assigning some reason and sending me back.5. So having no other way I approached the office of IG as per Annexure-F on 06.02.2017 and requested him to look into the matter as I am being made to run from pillar to post and no case is registered till today and the IG endorsed and directed the DYSP and SP to direct the Respondent No 3 and 4 to register the FIR as the applicant is approaching since last two months. Inspite of all may efforts no Case was registered and hence having no other way out I approached this Hon’ble Court seeking justice.Hence this affidavit.24. In view of the said affidavit and counter affidavit filed by both the 4th Respondent and petitioner, let me analyse the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. Under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prescribes the procedure-Information to the Police and their powers to investigate. The provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, and 157 of Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under;154. Information in cognizable cases:- (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his directions, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf:[Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an ofence under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, section 376A, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer:Provided further that-(a) in the event that the person against whom an offence under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, section 376A, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, them such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place of such person’s choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be;(b) the recording of such information shall be videographed;(c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (5A) of section 164 as soon as possible.(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.(3) Any person, aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence:155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases: (1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate.(2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial(3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case.(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable the case shall be deemed to be cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.156. Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case:- (1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned.157. Procedure for investigation:-(1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizable of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender:Provided that-(a) when information as to the commission of any offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature, the officer in charge of a police station need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot;(b) if it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case:[Provided further that in relation to an offence of rape, the recording of statement of the victim shall be conducted at the residence of the victim or in the place of her choice and as far as practicable by a woman police officer in the presence of her parents or guardian or near relatives or social worker of the locality.](2) In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1), the officer in charge of the police station shall state in his report his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements to that sub-section, and, in the case mentioned in clause(b) of the said proviso, the officer shall also forthwith notify to the informant, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated.25. The said provisions make it clear that the registration of F.I.R. is mandatory, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation this is the general rule and must be strictly complied with. The scope of preliminary inquiry, even when permissible in such limited classes of cases, is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received. But only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence, proper stage for such verification of the veracity of the information is after registration of F.I.R. and not before registration of F.I.R. The provisions of section 155 of Code of Criminal Procedure directs that the substance of information relating to the commission of a non-cognizable offence lodged in a police station shall be entered in the station diary and the information shall be referred to the Magistrate. Moreover, every information received relating to commission of a non-cognizable offence also has to be registered. Section 156 of Code of Criminal Procedure confers on the police unrestricted power to investigate a cognizance offence without the order of a Magistrate or without a formal First information Report. The underpinnings of compulsory registration of FIR is not only to ensure transparency in the criminal justice delivery system but also to ensure judicial oversight. Section 157(1) of Code of criminal Procedure deploys the word “forthwith”. Thus, any information received under section 154(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure or otherwise has to be duly informed in the form of a report to the Magistrate. Thus, the commission of a cognizable offence is not only brought to the knowledge of the investigating agency but also to be subordinate judiciary.26. In view of the provisions stated supra it is relevant to state at this stage that, the Superintendent of Police by reminder dated 22.02.2017 addressed to CPI Jewargi Circle has stated in respect of complaint given by petitioner enquiry should be held and should report to the office within seven days, which reads as under;“KANNADA”In spite of the same the 4th Respondent has not registered the case.27. Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure deals with examination of witnesses by police which reads as under;161. Examination of witnesses by Police.-(1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter, or any police officer not below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.(2) Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him by such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or a penalty or forfeiture.(3) The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section; and if he does so, he shall make a separate and true record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records.28. A plain reading of the said provision makes it clear that any police officer making an investigation under this chapter or any police officer of such rank as the State Government may be general or special order prescribed in this behalf acting on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him by such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture. The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section if he does so, he shall make a separate and record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records. It is clear that the jurisdictional Sub Inspector of police-4th Respondent deliberately failed to register the FIR as contemplated on the information received based on such complaint.29. In the present case the Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 17.01.2017 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Kalaburagi requested to consider the application of the petitioner and take action in accordance with law, as per Annexure-E which reads as under;“KANNADA”30. The Registrar of Human Rights Commission, Bengaluru addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Kalaburagi by order dated 17.02.2017 directed as under;“KANNADA”31. The Deputy Commissioner, Kalaburagi also requested the District Superintendent of Police, Kalaburagi to take action in respect of complaint given by the petitioner on 09.03.2017 which reads as under;“KANNADA”32. The Tahasildar by an order dated 26.12.2016 requested the Circle Inspector of Police, Jewargi police station to take action on the complaint made by the petitioner and give proper protection etc, which reads as under;“KANNADA”33. Inspite of the directions of the issued by Taluka Executive Magistrate, District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, Human Rights Commission as well as the Under Secretary of Chief Minister, as stated supra, the 4th Respondent has not registered the FIR on the complaint of the petitioner. It is specific case of the 4th Respondent who appeared before this Court on two occasions and today also, that he has to obey the directions issued by his higher authorities as per Annexure R-1 and R-2. Inspite of the intimation to the petitioner, he has not approached 4th Respondent to sign the FIR or to lodge a new complaint. Therefore, he could not register the FIR. In the personal affidavit filed on 01.06.2017 the 4th Respondent has not denied the fact the directions and communications issued by the higher authorities about complaint lodged by petitioner directing to register the FIR.34. In the entire personal affidavit or in the arguments of learned Government Advocate, it is not their case that inspite of the directions issued by higher authorities, the 4th Respondent has communicated to the higher authorities stated supra including the Chief Minister office, Human Rights Commission that what is the reason for not registering the FIR and it is not the case of the Respondents-Government that they have issued any notice to the petitioner to come to police station in order to mention the date, time and sign the FIR. No documents are produced before the Court to show that the 4th Respondent has taken positive steps to register the FIR nor intimated the petitioner to come to the police station to mention the date, time or lodge a new complaint. The assertions made in para Nos.4 and 5 of the personal affidavit filed by the 4th Respondent has been denied in toto by the petitioner by filing his personal affidavit. He has categorically stated that “he never called by 4th Respondent to appear before police station to mention the date and time in the complaint. Even though he approached the 4th Respondent about 10 times in fact on the date of incident i.e., on 28.12.2016 itself he approached the 4th and 5th Respondents presented the complaint and he was waited whole day in the police station requested them to come to the spot and conduct panchanama. After waiting till evening he was asked to come next day for registering FIR. Again he went to police station on 29.12.2016, but there was no response from them nor they registered the FIR stating that they have their urgent work to do.” Therefore, he was shocked and approached higher authorities. Inspite of approaching the higher authorities, taluka Magistrate, District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, Human Rights Commission and Chief Minister office, he was not able to get register the FIR. Therefore, he approached this Court.35. The material on record clearly indicates that the 4th Respondent has no respect to the law and he has no respect to the higher authorities. It clearly indicates the negligence on the part of the 4th Respondent for the reasons best known to him. The provisions of Section 166 of Indian Penal Code contemplates that public servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury to any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both, which reads as under;166. Public Servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person.- Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.36. With regard to contention of learned Government Advocate that Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued, if the concerned authority has not registered the FIR, the only remedy to the petitioner to file private complaint under section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be accepted, as the said submission is against the mandatory provisions of Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure and contrary to the Dictums of this Court and Hon’ble Apex Court time and again. The police stations are meant for the public and all the officers of the police department including the Sub Inspector shall ensure that injustice should not be done to the persons who approaches to police station with great expectations. If the contention of the learned Government Advocate accepted, then there is no need to lodge the complaint before the jurisdictional police. That is not the intention of legislature while enacting the provisions of Indian Penal Code or Code of Criminal Procedure or Indian Evidence Act.V. DUTY AND FUNCTIONS OF THE POLICE OFFICER TOWARDS CIVIL SOCIETY37. Every police officer should have the courtesy towards the public is the essence of and the key to good public relations. It is essential that every police officer, from the man on beat to the highest executive, should have a sound knowledge of the value of the curtsey. The man on patrol is recognized as the basic unit in a police service set-up to protect life and property, prevent crime, detect crime and criminals, and maintain peace and order. In uniform he loses his identity as a private citizen, and to the average man on the street. HE IS THE WHOLE POLICE SERVICE. It is up to him to decide, through his own actions, in the exercise of his varied duties and in the way he handles a situation in the eyes of many viewers, what public opinion will be formed towards the reputation of his Service and its professional efficiency. A wrong step or bad approach to a situation will no doubt destroy the respect and trust of the public towards the whole Service. Every single police man should, therefore, realize that the carries in his hands the prestige and reputation of the Service he represents.38. The police are the first visible point of contact of citizens. It is the only agency that has the widest possible contact with the people. Police functions are mostly prohibitive and regulatory in nature and this leaves an impression on the individual citizens that police interferes with the life, liberty and freedom of the people. It is the duty of the police to preserve order and prevent crime. When there is a violation of law, it is the duty of the police to apprehend the offenders and produce them before the court to be dealt with the procedure established by law. In fact, police is the most ‘aggressively critical’ public institution and therefore any malpractice or violation of human rights committed by the police comes into critical public gaze in the media and by human rights groups. Police as a public institution is created and strengthened by law and therefore, must be more responsible to people. The purpose and objective of police in a democratic society are1. Prevention and detection of crime2. Maintenance of public order3. Respect for rule of law4. Respect for the dignity of human person, and5. Respect for freedom, liberty and rights of citizens.39. The Police Act of 1861 visualized the role of the police as a mere law enforcement agency. The National Police Commission (1978) suggested that the police should assume a service oriented role of which law enforcement is only a part. It further pointed out that due recognition should be given to the police station as the basic unit of contact between the people and the police. The National Police Commission also recommended that the entire police philosophy, culture and attitude should be such as to make a police station appeal and function as a ready source of relief for the people in distress situation and the vulnerable, more so in the case of women and weaker sections. The social legislations have added new dimension to the role of police. In fact, the role of police has been redefined to include the values of democratic polity, secularism, social justice, human dignity and building up a democratic image of police to serve the community. The concept of development and distributive justice has further extended the role of police to new arenas. In a democratic society, the police is responsible to the people.VI FIRST INFORMATION REPORT40. The object of FIR are;-(1) Set the law into motion.(2) Is to obtain information about occurrence.(3) To corroborate during trial.(4) Anybody can lodge FIR. Question of locus standi does not arise.VII DICTUMS OF THE HON’BLE APEX COURT41. The office in charge of Station House cannot refuse to register the FIR in view of the Dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohindro vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in 2001 CRL. L.J. 2587, has held under:-1. The grievance of the appellant is that though she has approached the authority for registering a case against the alleged accused persons but the police never registered a case and never put the law in motion, and therefore, having failed in an attempt in the High Court to get a case registered she has approached this Court. Pursuant to the notice issued the respondents have entered appearance. Though the learned Counsel appearing for the State of Punjab stated that there had been an enquiry, we fail to understand as to how there can be an enquiry without registering a criminal case. On the facts alleged, it transpires that the appellant approached the police for registering a case and get the allegation investigated into and yet for no reasons whatsoever the police failed to register the case. In the aforesaid premises, we allow this appeal and direct that a case be registered on the basis of the report to be lodged by the appellant at the Police Station within a week from today and thereafter the matter will be duly investigated into and appropriate action be taken accordingly.2. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly.42. The Hon’ble Supreme Court even went ahead holding that if cognizable offence is committed outside the jurisdiction of the Station, the officer in charge can record an FIR, in view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh, Appellant v. Punati Ramulu and others, Respondents, reported in AIR 1993 Supreme Court 2644 at para 4 held as follows:-The police constable at the police station refused to record the complaint presented by PW 1 on the ground that the said police station had no territorial jurisdiction over the place of crime. It was certainly a dereliction of duty on the part of the constable because any lack of territorial jurisdiction could not have prevented the constable from recording information about the cognizable offence and forwarding the same to the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which the crime was said to have been committed.43. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the case of Ramesh Kumari .Vs. State of (NCT of Delhi) and others, reported in (2006) 2 Supreme Court Cases 677, held that provision of Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure is mandatory and the police officer concerned duty bound to register the case on receiving information disclosing cognizable offence. Genuineness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case; that can only be considered after registration of the case. At para Nos.3 and 5 held as under;“3. Mr. Vikas Singh, the learned Additional Solicitor General, at the outset, invites our attention to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent and submits that pursuant to the aforesaid observation of the High Court the complaint/representation has been subsequently examined by the respondent and found that no genuine case was established. We are not convinced by this submission because the sole grievance of the appellant is that no case has been registered in terms of the mandatory provisions of Section 154(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Genuineness or otherwise of the information can only be considered after registration of the case. Genuineness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. We are also clearly of the view that the High Court erred in law in dismissing the petition solely on the ground that the contempt petition was pending and the appellant had an alternative remedy. The ground of alternative remedy nor pending of the contempt petition would be no substitute in law not to register a case when a citizen makes a complaint of a cognizable offence against a police officer.4. xxx xxx xxx5. The views expressed by this Court in paras 31, 32 and 33 as quoted above leave no manner of doubt that the provision of Section 154 of the Code is mandatory and the office concerned is duty-bound to register the case on the basis of such an information disclosing cognizable offence.44. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Section 154 in the case of Superintendent of Police, CBI and Others vs. Tapan Kumar Singh reported in (2003) 6 SCC 175, held that general diary entry; Treatment of, as FIR; Held, GD entry may be treated as FIR in an appropriate case, where it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and the law does not require the mentioning of all the ingredients of the offence in the FIR. It is only after complete investigation that it may possible to say whether any offence is made out or on the basis of evidence collected by investigating agency, held as under;16. The parties before us did not dispute the legal position that a G.D. Entry may be treated as a First Information Report in an appropriate case, where it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If the contention of the appellants is upheld, the order of the High Court must be set aside because if there was in law a First Information Report disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence, the police had the power and jurisdiction to investigate, and in the process of investigation to conduct search and seizure. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to consider the authorities cited at the Bar on the question of validity of the preliminary enquiry and the validity of the search and seizure.18. The information so recorded does make a categoric assertion that the respondent has accepted a sum of rupees one lakh by way of illegal gratification, and that he was carrying the said amount with him while going to Nagpur by Gitanjali Express on that day. If these assertions are accepted on their face value, clearly an offence of criminal mis-conduct under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is made out. It cannot be disputed that such offence of criminal mis-conduct is a cognizable offence having regard to the second item of the last part of Schedule I of the Code of Criminal Procedure under the head “II Classification of Offences Against other laws”.20. It is well settled that a First Information Report is not an encyclopedia, which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. An informant may lodge a report about the commission of an offence though he may not know the name of the victim or his assailant. He may not even know how the occurrence took place. A first informant need not necessarily be an eye witness so as to be able to disclose in great details all aspects of the offence committed. What is of significance is that the information given must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the information so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. At this stage it is enough if the police officer on the basis of the information given suspects the commission of a cognizable offence, and not hat he must be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been committed. If he has reasons to suspect, on the basis of information received, that a cognizable offence may have been committed, he is bound to record the information and conduct an investigation. At this stage it is also not necessary for him to satisfy himself about the truthfulness of the information. It is only after a complete investigation that he may be able to report on the truthfulness or otherwise of the information. Similarly, even if the information does not furnish all the details, he must find out those details in the course of investigation and collect all the necessary evidence. The information given disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence only sets in motion the investigative machinery, with a view to collect all necessary evidence, and thereafter to take action in accordance with law. The true test is whether the information furnished provides a reason to suspect the commission of an offence, which the concerned police officer is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate. If it does, he has no option but to record the information and proceed to investigate the case either himself or depute any other competent officer to conduct the investigation. The question as to whether the report is true, whether it discloses full details regarding the manner of occurrence, whether the accused is named, and whether there is sufficient evidence to support the allegations are all matters which are alien to the consideration of the question whether the report discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Even if the information does not give full details regarding these matters, the investigating officer is not absolved of his duty to investigate the case and discover the true facts, if he can.22. The High Court has also quashed the G.D. Entry and the investigation on the ground that the information did not disclose all the ingredients of the offence, as if the informant is obliged to reproduce the language of the section, which defines “criminal misconduct” in the Prevention of Corruption Act. In our view the law does not require the mentioning of all the ingredients of the offence in the First Information Report. It is only after a complete investigation that it may be possible to say whether any offence is made out on the basis of evidence collected by the investigating agency.45. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the judgment relied by the learned Government Advocate in the case of Sakiri Vasu Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others stated supra has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, the contention of the learned Government Advocate that petitioner should be directed to approach the learned Magistrate Court under section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be accepted.46. The material on record clearly depicts that the petitioner lodged a complaint on a particular date and subsequently to the higher authorities including Deputy Commissioner, Human Rights and office of Chief Minister who directed to register a case. In spite of the same, the 4th Respondent has not registered the case without any reason and reasons mentioned in the personal affidavit in Para Nos.4 and 5 is not a basis to refuse to register the FIR on the complaint lodged by the petitioner. The petitioner has made out a judicial enforceable right as well as legal protected right before suffering the legal grievance can ask for Writ of Mandamus. A person said to be aggrieved only when denied legal right by some one who is legal duty to do the same thing or to abstain from doing same thing. In the present case the petitioner has made out a legal right and legal right has not been discharged by the 4th Respondent. For the reasons stated above, 1st point raised in the Writ Petition has to be answered in the affirmative holding that the petitioner has made out a case for Writ of Mandamus as prayed for.47. The Karnataka Police Manual contemplates the powers and duty of superior officers in the State at Chapter VI the powers and duties of subordinate police officers, so far as Sub Inspector is concerned, Manual 226 which reads as under;226. A Sub Inspector in charge of a Police Station is fully responsible for the police administration of his charge. It is his duty to assign to his subordinates their duties and to ensure that they perform them correctly and to take measures for the preservation of the peace and the prevention and detection of crime within the limits of his station. The Circle Inspector’s supervision will no way relieve the Sub-Inspector of the full responsibility for the police work in his station area. He should keep all his superiors promptly informed of any important/serious incident in his jurisdiction.Under these circumstances this Court has to exercise the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India.48. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of 154, 155, 156, 157 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in the case of Lalita Kumari V/S Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1, held as under;44. It may be mentioned in this connection that the first and foremost principle of interpretation of a statute in every system of interpretation is the literal rule of interpretation. All that we have to see at the very outset is what does the provision say? As a result, the language employed in Section 154 is the determinative factor of the legislative intent. A plain reading of Section 154 (1) of the Code provides that any information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer-in-charge of a police station shall be reduced into writing by him or under his direction. There is no ambiguity in the language of Section 154(1) of the Code.45. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in M/s Hiralal Rattanlal (supra) which are as under:“22. …In construing a statutory provision, the first and the foremost rule of construction is the literary construction. All that we have to see at the very outset is what does that provision say? If the provision is unambiguous and if from that provision, the legislative intent is clear, we need not call into aid the other rules of construction of statutes. The other rules of construction of statutes are called into aid only when the legislative intention is not clear….”46. The above decision was followed by this Court in B. Premanand (supra) and after referring the abovesaid observations in the case of Hiralal Rattanlal (supra), this Court observed as under:“9. It may be mentioned in this connection that the first and foremost principle of interpretation of a statute in every system of interpretation is the literal rule of interpretation. The other rules of interpretation e.g. the mischief rule, purposive interpretation, etc. can only be resorted to when the plain words of a statute are ambiguous or lead to no intelligible results or if read literally would nullify the very object of the statute. Where the words of a statute are absolutely clear and unambiguous, recourse cannot be had to the principles of interpretation other than the literal rule, vide Swedish Match AB v. SEBI (2004) 11 SCC 641.47. The language of Section 154(1), therefore, admits of no other construction but the literal construction.48. The legislative intent of Section 154 is vividly elaborated in Bhajan Lal (supra) which is as under:-“30. The legal mandate enshrined in Section 154(1) is that every information relating to the commission of a “cognizable offence” (as defined Under Section 2(c) of the Code) if given orally (in which case it is to be reduced into writing) or in writing to “an officer incharge of a police station” (within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Code) and signed by the informant should be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe which form is commonly called as “First Information Report” and which act of entering the information in the said form is known as registration of a crime or a case.31. At the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence in compliance with the mandate of Section 154(1) of the Code, the concerned police officer cannot embark upon an inquiry as to whether the information, laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. On the other hand, the officer in charge of a police station is statutorily obliged to register a case and then to proceed with the investigation if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate, subject to the proviso to Section 157. (As we have proposed to make a detailed discussion about the power of a police officer in the field of investigation of a cognizable offence within the ambit of Sections 156 and 157 of the Code in the ensuring part of this judgment, we do not propose to deal with those sections in extenso in the present context). In case, an officer in charge of a police station refuses to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and to register a case on the information of a cognizable offence reported and thereby violates the statutory duty cast upon him, the person aggrieved by such refusal can send the substance of the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned who if satisfied that the information forwarded to him discloses a cognizable offence, should either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him in the manner provided by sub-section (3) of Section 154 of the Code.32. Be it noted that in Section 154(1) of the Code, the legislature in its collective wisdom has carefully and cautiously used the expression “information” without qualifying the same as in Section 41(1)(a) or (g) of the Code wherein the expressions, “reasonable complaint” and “credible information” are used. Evidently, the non-qualification of the word “information” in Section 154(1) unlike in Section 41(1)(a) and (g) of the Code may be for the reason that the police officer should not refuse to record an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence and to register a case thereon on the ground that he is not satisfied with the reasonableness or credibility of the information. In other words, ‘reasonableness’ or ‘credibility’ of the said information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. A comparison of the present Section 154 with those of the earlier Codes will indicate that the legislature had purposely thought it fit to employ only the word “information” without qualifying the said word. Section 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1861 (Act 25 of 1861) passed by the Legislative Council of India read that ‘every complaint or information’ preferred to an officer in charge of a police station should be reduced into writing which provision was subsequently modified by Section 112 of the Code of 1872 (Act 10 of 1872) which thereafter read that ‘every complaint’ preferred to an officer in charge of a police station shall be reduced in writing. The word ‘complaint’ which occurred in previous two Codes of 1861 and 1872 was deleted and in that place the word ‘information’ was used in the Codes of 1882 and 1898 which word is now used in Sections 154, 155, 157 and 190(c) of the present Code of 1973 (Act 2 of 1974). An overall reading of all the Codes makes it clear that the condition which is sine qua non for recording a first information report is that there must be information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence.33. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, 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.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 concerned officer 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’50. The use of the word “shall” in Section 154(1) of the Code clearly shows the legislature intent that it is mandatory to register an FIR if the information given to the police discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.51. In Khub Chand (supra), this Court observed as under: (AIR p.1077, para 6)“6. ….The term “shall” in its ordinary significance is mandatory and the court shall ordinarily give that interpretation to that term unless such an interpretation leads to some absurd or inconvenient consequence or be at variance with the intent of the legislature, to be collected from other parts of the Act. The construction of the said expression depends on the provisions of a particular Act, the setting in which the expression appears, the object for which the direction is given, the consequences that would flow from the infringement of the direction and such other consideration…”52. It is relevant to mention that the object of using the word “shall” in the context of Section 154(1) of the Code is to ensure that all information relating to all cognizable offences is promptly registered by the police and investigated in accordance with the provisions of law.53. Investigation of offences and prosecution of offenders are the duties of the State. For “cognizable offences”, a duty has been cast upon the police to register FIR and to conduct investigation except as otherwise permitted specifically under Section 157 of the Code. If a discretion, option or latitude is allowed to the police in the matter of registration of FIRs, it can have serious consequences on the public order situation and can also adversely affect the rights of the victims including violating their fundamental right to equality.54. Therefore, the context in which the word “shall” appears in Section 154(1) of the Code, the object for which it has been used and the consequences that will follow from the infringement of the direction to register FIRs, all these factors clearly show that the word “shall” used in Section 154(1) needs to be given its ordinary meaning of being of “mandatory” character. The provisions of Section 154(1) of the Code, read in the light of the statutory scheme, do not admit of conferring any discretion on the officer in-charge of the police station for embarking upon a preliminary inquiry prior to the registration of an FIR. It is settled position of law that if the provision is unambiguous and the legislative intent is clear, the court need not call into it any other rules of construction.55. In view of the above, the use of the word ‘shall’ coupled with the Scheme of the Act lead to the conclusion that the legislators intended that if an information relating to commission of a cognizable offence is given, then it would mandatorily be registered by the officer in-charge of the police station. Reading ‘shall’ as ‘may’, as contended by some counsel, would be against the Scheme of the Code. Section 154 of the Code should be strictly construed and the word ‘shall’ should be given its natural meaning. The golden rule of interpretation can be given a go-by only in cases where the language of the section is ambiguous and/or leads to an absurdity.56. In view of the above, we are satisfied that Section 154(1) of the Code does not have any ambiguity in this regard and is in clear terms. It is relevant to mention that Section 39 of the Code casts a statutory duty on every person to inform about commission of certain offences which includes offences covered by Sections 121 to 126, 302, 64-A , 382, 392 etc., of the IPC. It would be incongruous to suggest that though it is the duty of every citizen to inform about commission of an offence, but it is not obligatory on the officer-incharge of a Police Station to register the report. The word ‘shall’ occurring in Section 39 of the Code has to be given the same meaning as the word ‘shall’ occurring in Section 154(1) of the Code.Significance and Compelling reasons for registration of FIR at the earliest.93. The object sought to be achieved by registering the earlier information as FIR is inter alia two fold: one, that the criminal process is set into motion and is well documented from the very start; and second, that the earliest information received in relation to the commission of a cognizable offence is recorded so that there cannot be any embellishment etc., later.94. Principles of democracy and liberty demand a regular and efficient check on police powers. One way of keeping check on authorities with such powers is by documenting every action of theirs. Accordingly, under the Code, actions of the police etc., are provided to be written and documented. For example, in case of arrest under Section 41(1)(b) of the Code, the arrest memo along with the grounds has to be in writing mandatorily; under Section 55 of the Code, if an officer is deputed to make an arrest, then the superior officer has to write down and record the offence etc., for which the person is to be arrested; under Section 91 of the Code, a written order has to be passed by the concerned officer to seek documents; under Section 160 of the Code, a written notice has to be issued to the witness so that he can be called for recording of his/her statement, seizure memo/panchanama has to be drawn for every article seized etc.95. The police is required to maintain several records including Case Diary as provided under Section 172 of the Code, General Diary as provided under Section 44 of the Police Act etc., which helps in documenting every information collected, spot visited and all the actions of the police officers so that their activities can be documented. Moreover, every information received relating to commission of a non-cognizable offence also has to be registered under Section 155 of the Code.96. The underpinnings of compulsory registration of FIR is not only to ensure transparency in the criminal justice delivery system but also to ensure ‘judicial oversight’. Thus, any information received under Section 154(1) or otherwise has to be duly informed in the form of a report to the Magistrate. Thus, the commission of a cognizable offence is not only brought to the knowledge of the investigating agency but also to the subordinate judiciary.97. The Code contemplates two kinds of FIRs: the duly signed FIR under Section 154(1) is by the informant to the concerned officer at the police station. The second kind of FIR could be which is registered by the police itself on any information received or other than by way of an informant [Section 157(1)] and even this information has to be duly recorded and the copy should be sent to the Magistrate forthwith. The registration of FIR either on the basis of the information furnished by the informant under Section 154(1) of the Code or otherwise under Section 157(1) of the Code is obligatory. The obligation to register FIR has inherent advantages:97.1 (a) It is the first step to ‘access to justice’ for a victim.97.2 (b) It upholds the ‘Rule of Law’ inasmuch as the ordinary person brings forth the commission of a cognizable crime in the knowledge of the State.97.3 (c) It also facilitates swift investigation and sometimes even prevention of the crime. In both cases, it only effectuates the regime of law.97.4 (d) It leads to less manipulation in criminal cases and lessens incidents of ‘ante-dates’ FIR or deliberately delayed FIR.101. Accordingly to the Statement of Objects and Reasons, protection of the interests of the poor is clearly one of the main objects of the Code. Making registration of information relating to commission of a cognizable offence mandatory would help the society, especially, the poor in rural and remote areas of the country.102. The Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System headed by Dr. Justice V.S. Malimath also noticed the plight faced by several people due to non-registration of FIRs and recommended that action should be taken against police officers who refuse to register such information. The Committee observed:-“7.19.1 According to the Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the office incharge of a police station is mandated to register every information oral or written relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. Non-registration of cases is a serious complaint against the police. The National Police Commission in its 4th report lamented that the police “evade registering cases for taking up investigation where specific complaints are lodged at the police stations”. It referred to a study conducted by the Indian Institute of Public Opinion, New Delhi regarding “Image of the Police in India” which observed that over 50% of the respondents mention non- registration of complaints as a common practice in police stations.7.19.2 The Committee recommends that all complaints should be registered promptly, failing which appropriate action should be taken. This would necessitate change in the mind- set of the political executive and that of senior officers.7.19.4 There are two more aspects relating to registration. The first is minimization of offences by the police by way of not invoking appropriate sections of law. We disapprove of this tendency. Appropriate sections of law should be invoked in each case unmindful of the gravity of offences involved. The second issue is relating to the registration of written complaints. There is an increasing tendency amongst the police station officers to advise the informants, who come to give oral complaints, to bring written complaints. This is wrong. Registration is delayed resulting in valuable loss of time in launching the investigation and apprehension of criminals. Besides, the complainant gets an opportunity to consult his friends, relatives and sometimes even lawyers and often tends to exaggerate the crime and implicate innocent persons. This eventually has adverse effect at the trial. The information should be reduced in writing by the SH, if given orally, without any loss of time so that the first version of the alleged crime comes on record.7.20.11 It has come to the notice of the Committee that even in cognizable cases quite often the Police officers do not entertain the complaint and send the complainant away saying that the offence is not cognizable. Sometimes the police twist facts to bring the case within the cognizable category even though it is non-cognizable, due to political or other pressures or corruption. This menace can be stopped by making it obligatory on the police officer to register every complaint received by him. Breach of this duty should become an offence punishable in law to prevent misuse of the power by the police officer.”103. It means that the number of FIRs not registered is approximately equivalent to the number of FIRs actually registered. Keeping in view the NCRB figures that show that about 60 lakh cognizable offences were registered in India during the year 2012, the burking of crime may itself be in the range of about 60 lakh every year. Thus, it is seen that such a large number of FIRs are not registered every year, which is a clear violation of the rights of the victims of such a large number of crimes.104. Burking of crime leads to dilution of the rule of law in the short run; and also has a very negative impact on the rule of law in the long run since people stop having respect for rule of law. Thus, non-registration of such a large number of FIRs leads to a definite lawlessness in the society.105. Therefore, reading section 154 in any other form would not only be detrimental to the Scheme of the Code but also to the society as a whole. It is thus seen that this Court has repeatedly held in various decided cases that registration of FIR is mandatory if the information given to the police under Section 154 of the Code discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.114. It is true that a delicate balance has to be maintained between the interest of the society and protecting the liberty of an individual. As already discussed above, there are already sufficient safeguards provided in the Code which duly protect the liberty of an individual in case of registration of false FIR. At that same time, Section 154 was drafted keeping in mind the interest of the victim and the society. Therefore, we are of the cogent view that mandatory registration of FIRs under Section 154 of the Code will not be in contravention of Article 21 of the Constitution as purported by various counsel.Exceptions115. Although, we, in unequivocal terms, hold that Section 154 of the Code postulates the mandatory registration of FIRs on receipt of all cognizable offence, yet, there may be instances where preliminary inquiry may be required owing to the change in genesis and novelty of crimes with the passage of time. One such instance is in the case of allegations relating to medical negligence on the part of doctors. It will be unfair and inequitable to prosecute a medical professional only on the basis of the allegations in the complaint.116. In the context of medical negligence cases, in Jacob Mathew (supra), it was held by this Court as under:“51. We may not be understood as holding that doctors can never be prosecuted for an offence of which rashness or negligence is essential ingredient. All that we are doing is to emphasise the need for care and caution in the interest of society; for, the service which the medical profession renders to human beings is probably the noblest of all, and hence there is a need for protecting doctors from frivolous or unjust prosecutions. Many a complainant prefer recourse to criminal process as a tool for pressurising the medical professional for extracting uncalled for or unjust compensation. Such malicious proceedings have to be guarded against.52. Statutory rules or executive instructions incorporating certain guidelines need to be framed and issued by the Government of India and/or the State Governments in consultation with the Medical Council of India. So long as it is not done, we propose to lay down certain guidelines for the future which should govern the prosecution of doctors for offences of which criminal rashness or criminal negligence is an ingredient. A private complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence before the court in the form of a credible opinion given by another competent doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused doctor. The investigating officer should, before proceeding against the doctor accused of rash or negligent act or omission, obtain an independent and competent medical opinion preferably from a doctor in government service, qualified in that branch of medical practice who can normally be expected to give an impartial and unbiased opinion applying the Bolam 9 test to the facts collected in the investigation. A doctor accused of rashness or negligence, may not be arrested in a routine manner (simply because a charge has been levelled against him). Unless his arrest is necessary for furthering the investigation or for collecting evidence or unless the investigating officer feels satisfied that the doctor proceeded against would not make himself available to face the prosecution unless arrested, the arrest may be withheld.”117. In the context of offences relating to corruption, this Court in P. Sirajuddin (supra) expressed the need for a preliminary inquiry before proceeding against public servants.118. Similarly, in Tapan Kumar Singh, this Court has validated a preliminary inquiry prior to registering an FIR only on the ground that at the time the first information is received, the same does not disclose a cognizable offence.119. Therefore, in view of various counterclaims regarding registration or non-registration, what is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limits purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex. facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR.Conclusion/Directions120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:1. The 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.2. 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.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of 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.4. 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.5. 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.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/latches 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.7. 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.8. 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.49. The material on record clearly depicts that inspite of directions issued by the higher authorities namely, Taluka Magistrate, District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, Human Rights Commission as well as Additional Secretary to Chief Minister, the 4th Respondent has not registered the FIR on the complaint made by the petitioner. The documents clearly indicate that the police has not acting in accordance with provisions of Sections 154 and 161. Therefore, it is the high time for the Government to take action against erring police officer who failed to register FIR violating the mandatory provisions of Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The experience of this Court that there are several police officers who price their blood in the interest of public at large and only a few police officers like the present one-4th Respondent never bother about the welfare of the society, thereby destroying the reputation of the entire police department, such officers deserve proper punishment. In view of the same, the point No.2 raised has to be answered in the negative holding that the 4th Respondent is not justified in refusing to register FIR in-spite-of directions issued by the higher authorities.VIII CONCLUSION/DIRECTIONS50. The material documents on record clearly indicate that the present Sub Inspector of Police has no respect to the law as contemplated under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the directions issued by the higher authorities even though he appeared on three occasions before the Court and even after passing detailed orders, did not raise an occasion to register FIR inspiteof the mandatory provisions of Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure which clearly indicates the adamant attitude of the officer. If such officers are continued in the police Department, it will be detriment to the public at large and he will get bad reputation to the department. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a case to issue writ of mandamus as prayed for.51. The police stations are meant to protect the people at large and to save the public from the rowdy elements, unscrupulous persons and the persons who violate the law. If the police are not act immediately on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the petitioner has not only lost his time, energy and has to approach pillar to post at the instance of the 4th Respondent. As stated supra he has approached the Taluka Magistrate, District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, Human Rights Commission and the Hon’ble Chief Minister office. Inspite of the same, the 4th Respondent has not registered the FIR. As a last resort he approaches this Court with great expectation as Court of temple. Therefore, this is a fit case for the higher authorities to take action immediately. It is high time for the State Government, Home Department and the concerned Superintendent of Police to direct all the police stations in the State to comply the mandatory provisions of Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure to register the FIR as soon as complaint received in view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as stated supra in the case of Lalitakumari, enable the people to get justice and to protect their property, personal liberty as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.52. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is allowed.(i) Writ of mandamus is issued directing the 4th Respondent to register FIR forthwith and the Superintendent of Police, Kalaburagi shall ensure that the complaint of the petitioner registered immediately through the 4th Respondent jurisdictional police and proceed in accordance with law.(ii) The Secretary, Home Department is directed to take immediate steps and shall ensure that all the police stations in the State, the Station House Officer shall receive the complaints and register FIR forthwith as contemplated under the mandatory provisions of section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure without driving the citizens who approach the police stations with great expectations to any other ventilation and forum.(iii) The Inspector General of Police, North East Region, Kalaburagi is directed to initiate departmental inquiry against 4th Respondent Sri Pradeep S. Bhise, Sub Inspector of Police, Jewargi Police Station, Kalaburagi District for dereliction of duty and for violation of the mandatory provisions of section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the Dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalitakumari stated supra.(iv) The petitioner has been driven from pillar to post as stated supra. Even after lapse of five months 4th Respondent has not registered FIR and thereby the petitioner spent money, suffered mental agony. Therefore, 4th Respondent Sri Pradeep S. Bhise, Sub Inspector of Police, Jewargi Police Station is liable to pay cost of litigation expenses which would be quantified about Rs.25,000/- payable to the petitioner within a period of one month from his packet, not from the State Government for unnecessarily driving the petitioner before this Court for the relief sought for.(v) The jurisdictional Superintendent of Police shall ensure that there should not be any further harassment to the petitioner in lodging the complaint, who moved from pillar to post and ultimately approached this Court for the relief sought for in the present Writ Petition.(vi) Registry is directed to send copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Secretary to the Home Department, Government of Karnataka and Inspector General of Police, Kalaburagi, to take appropriate action in accordance with law.Ordered accordingly.
"2017 ILR (Kar) 3109" == "2017 (4) KCCR 491 (SN),"