Orissa High Court
Pabitra Mohan Samal vs State Of Odisha And Others on 31 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMP No.91 of 2022
Pabitra Mohan Samal .... Petitioner
Mr. Saroj Kumar Dash, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. P.C.Panda, A.G.A.
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 31.01.2022
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the police to register F.I.R.
on the complaint lodged by the Petitioner, the Petitioner has
approached this Court by filing the present CRLMP application.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that he has
submitted a grievance petition before the Superintendent of Police,
Rural, Cuttack on dated 06.01.2022, which was sent by
Registered Post and the receipt of which has been annexed to the
CRLMP petition.
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
// 2 //
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 Officer-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 vrs. 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 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
// 3 //
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 field 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 the direction to
Opposite Party No.2 to dispose of the grievance petition of the
Petitioner dated 06.01.2022 within a period of two weeks from the
date of production of an authenticated copy of this order. The
Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider the complaint 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 complaint, comes to a conclusion that
the complaint reveals a cognizable offence, then he shall direct the
concerned Police Station to register the F.I.R., as directed in
Paragraph 120.1 of the judgment in Lalita Kumari's case (supra)
which is extracted herein below:-
// 4 //
"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 as modified by Court's Notice No.4798, dated 15th
April, 2021 and Office Order dated 7th January, 2022.
RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
