KEMBAR78
SC Direction On FIR | PDF | Appeal | Certiorari
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
150 views4 pages

SC Direction On FIR

The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal filed by Sindhu Janak Nagargoje against the order of the Bombay High Court dismissing her writ petition. Nagargoje had sought the registration of an offense regarding the brutal assault and death of her brother. The Supreme Court held that registration of a First Information Report is mandatory under law if the information discloses a cognizable offense. It directed the concerned authorities to proceed further with Nagargoje's complaints in accordance with law and set aside the High Court order.

Uploaded by

shilesh patel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
150 views4 pages

SC Direction On FIR

The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal filed by Sindhu Janak Nagargoje against the order of the Bombay High Court dismissing her writ petition. Nagargoje had sought the registration of an offense regarding the brutal assault and death of her brother. The Supreme Court held that registration of a First Information Report is mandatory under law if the information discloses a cognizable offense. It directed the concerned authorities to proceed further with Nagargoje's complaints in accordance with law and set aside the High Court order.

Uploaded by

shilesh patel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2023


(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5883 of 2020)

SINDHU JANAK NAGARGOJE ..... APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ..... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is directed against the impugned order dated

05.10.2020 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 817 of 2020 by the

High Court at Bombay, Appellate Side, Bench at Aurangabad, whereby

the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the

appellant – Sindhu Janak Nagargoje seeking directions to register

the offence as per the complaints submitted by the appellant.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that

the deceased Shivaji Bangar, brother of the appellant was severely

beaten and brutally assaulted by the accused on 02.04.2020 and he

succumbed to injuries on 03.04.2020. Thereafter on 05.04.2020, the

appellant and others had gone to the concerned police station to

register the crime, however the same was not registered. The

appellant thereafter submitted the complaints on 06.05.2020 and


Signature Not Verified

12.06.2020 to the concerned respondents however no action was taken


Digitally signed by
SWETA BALODI
Date: 2023.08.10
16:51:18 IST
Reason:

to register the complaint.


2

The appellant - Sindhu Janak Nagargoje, therefore, approached

the High Court by way of the Writ Petition, which has been

dismissed by the impugned order.

In view of the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in

the case of “Lalita Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,”

reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, we are of the opinion that the

registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of CrPC, if the

information discloses commission of cognizable offence. We may

reiterate summary of law stated therein: -

“120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:

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.

120.2. If the information received does not disclose a


cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an
inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only
to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed
or not.

120.3 If the inquiry discloses the commission of a


cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In
cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the
complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be
supplied to the first informant forthwith and not
later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief
for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.

120.4 The police officer cannot avoid his duty of


registering offence if cognizable offence is
disclosed. Action must be taken against erring
officers who do not register the FIR if information
received by him discloses a cognizable offence.

120.5 The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to


verify the veracity or otherwise of the information
received but only to ascertain whether the information
reveals any cognizable offence.

120.6 As to what type and in which cases preliminary


inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case. The category of cases
in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
3

(b) Commercial offences


(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in
initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3
months delay in reporting the matter without
satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not
exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant
preliminary inquiry.

120.7 While ensuring and protecting the rights of the


accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry
should be made time bound and, in any case, it should
not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the
causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary
entry.

120.8 Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily


Diary is the record of all information received in a
police station, we direct that all information
relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in
registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be
mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said
Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary
inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.”

In the instant case, the complaints submitted by the

appellant to the concerned respondents did disclose the commission

of cognizable offence and also the names of the alleged offenders.

In that view of the matter, we allow the present appeal and

direct that the concerned respondents shall proceed further with

the complaints filed by the appellant in accordance with law.

The impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed in the

above terms.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

..................J.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI)

..................J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 08, 2023.
4

ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.15 SECTION II-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5883/2020

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05-10-2020


in CRLWP No. 817/2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay at Aurangabad)

SINDHU JANAK NAGARGOJE Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s)

(IA No. 120356/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED


JUDGMENT ANd IA No. 120357/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 08-08-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR


Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following


O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(BABITA PANDEY) (R.S. NARAYANAN)


COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)

You might also like