Recently, the Kerala High Court's Justice K. Babu held that an FIR registered under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act is intended solely for locating missing persons and cannot be regarded as an FIR under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”).
Brief Facts:
A 14-year-old girl was reported missing on 28.7.2021 by her stepfather, who claimed she left with a young man on a scooter. The police registered an FIR under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act, conducted an inquiry, and found the girl at her residence. After the girl revealed that the petitioner had sexually assaulted her, the police registered a new FIR under the Juvenile Justice Act and the POCSO Act. The police also submitted a closure report in the initial FIR before the jurisdictional magistrate.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The petitioner's counsel argued that filing a second FIR after registering an initial FIR under Kerala Police Act, based on information provided by the victim's stepfather, is not allowed. The counsel stated that it is a violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution to file a second FIR for an offense or different offenses committed during the same incident.
Contentions of the Respondent:
On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor argued that the FIR registered under Section 57 of the K.P. Act was solely to find the missing person and cannot be considered an FIR under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Observations by the Court:
The court analyzing the scheme of Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act observed that it mandates the SHO to register information about a missing person in a way like a cognizable offence, and then take immediate action to locate them. No investigation is required, and the SHO is responsible for finding the missing person after registering the FIR under Section 57, the court noted. Further, the court held that during an inquiry under Section 57 of the K.P. Act, the SHO is responsible for registering an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. if they receive information about a cognizable offense.
The Petitioner's argument that an Investigating Officer cannot register a subsequent FIR after registering an FIR under Section 57 of the K.P. Act was rejected by the Court. The Court listed several reasons to support its decision:
(1) Registration of FIR under Section 57 of the K.P. Act is only to locate the missing person.
(2) The information received in the given case did not reveal any cognizable offence.
(3) During the inquiry under Section 57 of the K.P. Act, the Station House Officer received information regarding cognizable offences based on the statement given by the victim herself, leading to the registration of FIR under section 154 Cr.P.C.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the accused.
Case Title: Muhammed Shiraz @Shiraz v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K Babu
Case No.: W.P.(Crl.) No. 275 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Advocates Manu Ramachandran, M. Kiranlal, R. Rajesh, Sameer M. Nair, Geethu Krishnan, and Sailakshmi Men
Advocate for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor Smt. Bindu
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
