Cognizable offence

Applicant had challenged the order of ex-Officio Justice of Peace whereby SHO was directed to lodge the FIR against the applicant, if cognizable offence was made out

Validity

Whenever a cognizable offence was made out, it would be the duty of the State to lodge FIR of such offence against the wrongdoer

Application having no merits was dismissed by the High Court along with listed applications with direction to SHO to register case against the wrongdoer if a cognizable offence was made.

Diversion of usual course of law wherein arrest was a rule, has to be averted only in cases actuated by abuse of process of law under motives manifestly ulterior.

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.

Not necessary that a person was required to be arrested if an F.I.R. was lodged against him for a cognizable offence and investigation was being conducted

Lodging of F.I.R. did not necessarily mean that person nominated in the F.I.R. should be arrested

Before arresting a person police must investigate the matter in detail

Police official who intended to arrest any person must satisfy himself that arrest was necessary, and must first collect evidence against the accused which justified arrest

One could only be arrested if sufficient evidence existed against him justifying his arrest

When an F.I.R. or complaint was registered against anyone, he should be treated in a civilized manner as the Constitution provided; that dignity of a man was inviolable, and that every citizen of the country had a right to be dealt with in accordance with law

All government officials particularly police officers were required to conduct themselves in a manner that no innocent person should fear going to the police station and he should be confident that he would not be harassed at the police station.

Plea raised by petitioner was that Station House Officer did not comply with direction issued by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace

Validity

Mandatory under S. 154 Cr.P.C., for Station House Officer to record such information which had disclosed commission of cognizable offence

If cognizable offence was not made out then Station House Officer had to report matter under S. 155, Cr.P.C.

Station House Officer having prepared report under S. 157, Cr.P.C. it was clear that he was aware of the fact that there were circumstances indicating commission of cognizable offence so he must have registered case under S. 154, Cr.P.C. and thereafter he would have proceeded in accordance with law which included proceedings under S. 157, Cr.P.C.

Matter was never placed before investigation department for investigation which was against scheme of criminal law in such respect

Station House Officer did not comply with order of Ex-officio Justice of Peace in sheer violation of law

High Court directed Station House Officer to see that orders of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, were complied with in accordance with law in letter and spirit

Petition was disposed of accordingly.

From information received through F.I.R. or otherwise, if even Station House Officer suspects commission of cognizable offence, he is duty bound to immediately commence investigation of such case and that such investigation has to be done at the spot i.e. at the place of occurrence and not at some other place.

In case of cognizable offence the complainant had to approach the Officer in charge of such police station under whose jurisdiction offence was said to have been committed

Officer in charge of the concerned police station or anyone else had no authority to refuse to record complainant's statement and/or to refuse to lodge an F.I.R.

After the occurrence, accused had been elected as Naib Nazim of a Union Council and was discharging his functions in the capacity of elected representative but the authorities knowing well about the involvement of accused in the murder case, failed to cause his arrest

Supreme Court was informed that those officers who had shown their reluctance to cause arrest of accused had been proceeded against departmentally

Effect

Supreme Court had shown its satisfaction that under the command of Regional Police Officer, all necessary steps were taken by the police for causing arrest of the accused and police had succeeded in arresting him as per the report placed on record along with remand letter

Legal course was required to be followed by all functionaries notwithstanding that what would be the position or status of wrongdoer and no one was to be considered above the law

Accused having been arrested, the law would take its own course

Application was disposed of.

Police has a statutory right to investigate into a cognizable offence as soon as reported or even without a report and irrespective of the authority of the reporter.