Preliminary inquiry

Provision of S. 154, Cr.P.C., only requires that substance of information of commission of cognizable offence is to be recorded in a book provided for such purpose

Expression 'registration of an FIR' has acquired loose meaning in our jurisprudence whereby, as it were, the tail wags the dog, and it is expected that the only book for the purpose is the FIR register in Form No. 24.5(1) stipulated under R. 24.5 of Police Rules, 1934

Such conceptual misunderstanding has led to an abuse of expression 'FIR' to the extent that it has become a tool for people to settle their scores and it reduces police to a mere rubber stamp at preliminary stage for being expected to 'register the FIR' and proceed to arrest straightaway

Police is bound to record, immediately on receipt, the substance of information of commission of cognizable offence in police station daily diary

There is no restriction on police carrying out preliminary inquiries thereafter before recording information (along with such additional information that police may have gathered on preliminary inquiries) in FIR Register under R. 24.5 of Police Rules, 1934 for the purposes of carrying out formal investigation

Proceeding to exercise powers of arrest if required and recording in FIR Register under R. 24.5 of Police Rules, 1934 include reasons for police officer's 'suspicion' and need for arrest of accused

Inquiries carried out by police leading to refusing to 'register FIR' in FIR Register is not illegal.

Police had visited the spot soon after the occurrence and it appeared that by that time complainant had no knowledge about the assailants

Report was wilfully delayed by police by concealing the real facts and preliminary inquiry was conducted whereafter the complainant charged the present accused after speculation and deliberation

Though preliminary inquiry by itself' was not a sufficient ground for disbelieving the prosecution story but in such situation presence of the eye-witnesses became doubtful and the Courts were required to scrutinize the evidence with great care and caution for arriving at a fair conclusion

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Provision of S. 154, Cr.P.C. does not permit police officer to hold a preliminary inquiry before it to ascertain whether information communicated to him is authentic.

Application of petitioners (minor girl and her mother) was dismissed by respondent (Chairman Union Council) after holding inquiry

Held, that holding of inquiry or probe was not within domain of union council(respondent)

Rather the same was within the domain of the Family Court, taking cognizance on the complain, to hold a preliminary inquiry under S.10 of Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929

Any proceedings conducted by union council (respondent) in pursuance to application of the petitioners were coram non judice

High Court directed the respondent (Chairman Union Council) to proceed against the respondents

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Ex-officio Justice of Peace called for report from Station House Officer concerned (which he was not required to do so) and merely on the basis of such report, had dismissed application of complainant/ petitioner, without even discussing version of applicant

Ex-officio Justice of Peace did not record any statement of complainant and even failed to call witnesses to record their statements who claimed to be eye-witnesses of the last seen

High Court directed concerned Station House Officer/police authorities to entertain complaint of petitioner, carry out investigation and register FIR against proposed accused, if a cognizable offence was made out

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Compliance with S.154, Cr.P.C. is a mandatory obligation and can neither be refused nor delayed on the ground of conducting inquiry.

Grievance of petitioner was that inquiries were allegedly held wherein accused was found innocent and stance of petitioner was found incorrect, despite the fact that serious allegations had been levelled against accused and wrong doers

Validity

All such acts by authorities denying petitioner his lawful right were unwarranted under the law

Police officials, at the very outset were bound to see as to whether a cognizable office was made out from bare reading of petition or not

As cognizable offence was made out, therefore, police officials were not under the law, bound to hold a preliminary inquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of allegations

From bare reading of complaint of petitioner, cognizable office was made out under the relevant provisions of law and police was bound to register criminal case against wrong doers

High Court directed police to register a case against accused and conduct investigation strictly in accordance with law

Petition was allowed in circumstances.