The High Court of Jharkhand directed the respondents to register an FIR against the accused, the police official for verbally abusing and assaulting the petitioner and her brother while they were protesting peacefully and held that no doubt that the petitioner is having alternative remedy, but looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case as disclosed in the petition, the Court finds that already much time has lapsed and to further delay the matter, unnecessarily the evidence may be further diluted.
Brief Facts:
A case was filed by the elder brother of the petitioner under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act regarding the murder of one of the brothers of the petitioner against unknown accused persons. The petitioner and her family members prayed to the Investigating Authority for a Narco Analysis Test of arrested accused persons after which they staged a peaceful protest outside the office of the Deputy Commissioner during which the in-charge of the police station allegedly verbally abused and physically assaulted the petitioner and her brother. The petitioner reported this incident in writing but no FIR was registered against the police official. The present petition was then filed to issue direction upon the respondents to register FIR on the complaint made by the petitioner.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that no FIR was registered in spite of the allegations of brutal assault upon the petitioner and all this happened overlooking the judgment in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the FIR with regard to the murder of the petitioner’s brother had already been registered, and is being investigated and in view of that, the entire act will come in the investigation of that case and further contended that the petitioners and others were protesting and they sustained injuries in course of such protest and that is why, the FIR has not been registered. The counsel further stated that the petitioner is having an alternative remedy.
Observations of the Court:
The court referred to the judgement in Lalita Kumari which held that the registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the CrPC if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence to state that once the offence of cognizable nature is there, the police officer is bound to register an FIR when complaint discloses cognizable offence.
The court stated that in the present case, the non-registration of the FIR is impermissible and would amount to dereliction of duty, upon the police officer. The court stated that the present case was not a single case and there were many cases of such nature where appropriate directions had been issued and it is unfortunate that a citizen has been compelled to approach the court under Article 226 for the registration of FIR when such a direction is already there in view of the judgment in Lalita Kumari.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and directed the Director General of Police to register an FIR immediately and further instructed them to issue necessary Circulars/Standard Operating Procedures to all Station House Officers, emphasizing compliance with the Lalita Kumari case directives, and warned of disciplinary proceedings for non-compliance.
Case Title: Pooja Giri vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.: W.P. (Cr.) No. 12 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Suraj Singh, Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj and Mr. Vikas Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. P.C. Sinha
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://miro.medium.com/max/700/1*smR6Qt26fhiJQB5LRfkWPw.jpeg
