Orissa High Court
Trinath Nayak vs State Of Odisha And Others on 18 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMP No.31 of 2022
Trinath Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. Sri OmSwarup, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. A.K. Sharma, AGA for State
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 18.01.2022
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing mode.
2. The Petitioner has filed the present CRLMP being aggrieved
by the inaction of the local police.
3. It is submitted that despite his complaint, the Police is not
taking up the investigation. Accordingly, he has informed the matter
to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bhubaneswar, by filing a
grievance petition dated 06.01.2022 by Registered Post with A.D. It
is further submitted that the grievance petition submitted before
Opposite Party No.2 is pending as of now. It is also his submission
that in view of the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India made in the decision rendered in the case of Lalita Kumari vs.
Government of U.P., reported in (2014) 2 SCC-1, the registration of
F.I.R. is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable
offence, then the F.I.R. is to be registered mandatorily.
4. Mr.A.K. Sharma, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the State submits that the dispute involved in the
// 2 //
present case is with regard to threaten given by the Opposite Party
Nos.4 and 5 to the Petitioner to kill for life.
5. A bare reading of Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') reveals, which is quoted herein below:-
"154. Information in cognizable cases.--(1) further
information relating to the cognizable offence, if given orally
to an Inspector-in-Charge of a Police Station, shall be
reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read
over to the informant; and every such information where
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 to be kept by such officer in such
form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
A close scrutiny of Section 154, Cr.P.C. makes it
mandatory on the part of the Police Officer to register an
F.I.R. in the event, a complaint is received by him which
discloses commission of cognizable offence. The use of
word 'shall' makes it mandatory for the Police Officer to
register a complaint disclosing a cognizable offence.
Therefore, the aforesaid provision in Cr.P.C. leaves no room
for doubt whether a complaint disclosing cognizable offence
is required to be registered as an F.I.R. or not. Therefore, the
Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station cannot
simply sit over the complaint which discloses commission of
cognizable offence."
6. With regard to inaction on the part of the Inspector-in-Charge
of Police Station or any other Police Officer before whom a
complaint is made either verbal or in writing and if such officer fails
in his duty to register the same as an F.I.R. then the remedy has been
provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Paragraph-31 of
the judgment rendered in the matter of State of Haryana vs.
Bhajanlal, reported in (1992) Supp(I) SCC 335. Paragraph-31 of
the said judgment has been quoted herein below:-
"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 police officer concerned cannot embark upon an inquiry
as to whether the information, laid by the informant is
// 3 //
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 156. (As we have proposed to make a detailed
discussion about the power of a police officer in the filed of
investigation of a cognizable offence within the ambit of
Sections 156 and 157 of the Code in the ensuing 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
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 an police
officer subordinate to him in the manner provided by sub-
section (3) of Section 154 of the Code."
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this matter is
being disposed of at the stage of admission with a direction to the
Opposite Party No.2 to dispose of the grievance petition of the
Petitioner dated 06.01.2022 within a period of four weeks from the
date of production of an authenticated copy of this order. The
Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider the grievance petition
of the Petitioner in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the matter of Lalita Kumari vs.
Government of U.P. (supra). It is needless to say that the Opposite
Party No.2, after a careful examination of the grievance petition,
comes to a conclusion that the petition reveals a cognizable offence,
then he shall direct the concerned I.I.C. to register the F.I.R., as
directed in Paragraph 120.1 of the judgment in Lalita Kumari's case
// 4 //
(supra), which is extracted hereunder:
"120.1. 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."
The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two
weeks from the date of production of an authenticated copy of this
order.
8. With the aforesaid observation, the CRLMP is disposed of.
9. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID -19 situation
are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a print out
of the order available in the High Court's website, at par with
certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned Advocate, in
the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25th
March, 2020, modified by Court's Notice No.4798, dated 15th April,
2021, and Court's Office Order circulated vide Memo Nos.514 and
515 dated 7th January, 2022.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
U.K. Sahoo
