The Single Bench of Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Shipra Dey Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors held that by not serving notice while calling the deceased to the Police Station and not recording the decision to conduct an enquiry, the Police Authorities have breached the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provisions and the Court's order in the Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
It was opined that the second FIR may be filed if the incident is distinct, the offences are comparable or dissimilar, or even if the later crime is so serious that it is outside the purview and parameters of the first FIR.
In the present case, it was noted that the offences alleged in both complaints were different. Therefore, the Police did not perform their duty by denying the registration of FIR.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner in the present petition has alleged the custodial death of her husband and insisted to issue directions to register an FIR against Respondent no. 4 and other police officers. She stated that there was some private dispute between her family and the private Respondents. Thereafter, based on the complaint at the instance of private Respondents, two constables came to the Petitioner’s house and asked her husband to visit the police station.
Thereafter, her husband with his brother visited the police station, where Respondent No.4 criticized the husband harshly and threatened to have him arrested if he did not acknowledge his guilt for attempting to outrage the modesty of Respondent No.9. Due to the repeated acts of threatening and abuses, the husband of the Petitioner suffered a cardiac attack and died.
The Petitioner asked for the registration of FIR, but it was not registered. Hence, the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was contended that the Police Authority failed to fulfil their duty by failing to file FIR It was further submitted that the Police didn’t comply with the procedures laid down under Sections 41A and 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 while calling the Petitioner’s husband at the police station.
Contentions of the State:
It was submitted that one FIR was already registered and after the registration of the first FIR, the second FIR cannot be registered. It was further contended that it is permissible to conduct a preliminary investigation to determine whether or not a cognizable offence has been disclosed, and for this reason, the Petitioner's husband was called at the police station It was further argued that an investigation was carried out and it was found that the claim against the Respondent No. 4 could not be proven.
Observations of the Court:
It was noted that no notice was served on the Deceased while calling him to the Police Station and further, there was no record of the decision to conduct an enquiry.
The Hon’ble Court observed that by not complying with the above provisions, there was a flagrant breach of the Code of Criminal Procedure provisions and the Court's order in the Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2014 2 SCC 1). Even the obligations as per Article 21 of the Constitution were not followed in the present case.
The Bench rejected the contention made by the Respondent and held that the second FIR may be filed if the incident is distinct, the offences are comparable or dissimilar, or even if the later crime is so serious that it is outside the purview and parameters of the first FIR.
In the present case, it was noted that the offences alleged in both complaints were different. Therefore, the Police did not perform their duty by denying the registration of FIR.
It was noted that “The manner in which the respondent police authorities have acted in the case on hand gives an impression in the mind of this Court that the police authorities are not ready to take steps based on the complaint of the writ petitioner as the allegations were directed against the police officers. It appears to this Court that the police authorities have proceeded to act in a manner to hide the real facts from the Court rather than to unearth the real facts.”
The High Court directed the filing of a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Decision of the Court:
Based on the above-mentioned reasons, the petition was accordingly, disposed of and the Court of Magistrate of competent jurisdiction was directed to register a complaint.
Case Title: Shipra Dey Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
Case No: WPA 13315 of 2018
Advocates for the Petitioner: Advs. Mr. Jayanta Naryan Chatterjee Mr. Debasish Banerjee Ms. Moumita Pandit Ms. Jayashree Patra Ms. Sreeparna Ghosh Ms. Ritushree Banerjee Ms. Dipanwita Das
Advocates for the State: Advs. Mr. Subhabrata Datta Mr. Debashis Sarkar
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
