Explain why preliminary inquiries persist in cognizable offenses: High Court to Punjab DGP

Less than a fortnight after the Punjab Police was rapped for “novel and extra-legal method” of conducting an inquiry without registering an FIR, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that the case revealed a grim reality.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu also asked the Punjab Director-General of Police to explain “whether the tendency of conducting a preliminary inquiry to assess the veracity of allegations in the first information has been stopped and if not why”.

Chief Justice Nagu also asked the DGP to elaborate upon the action against erring police officers. The directions came on a petition seeking the registration of a murder case against Baba Ranjit Singh Dhadrianwala.

Taking up the plea filed through counsel Navneet Kaur Waraich, Amarjot Kaur and Manpreet Singh Bhatti, Chief Justice Nagu asserted: “The case discloses sorry state of affairs, where instead of lodging an FIR based on the first information provided by the complainant on May 24, 2012, regarding an incident of rape and murder, the police embarked upon an illegal and unconstitutional inquiry to assess the veracity of the allegations”.

Referring to Section 154 of the CrPC/Section 173 of the BNSS, Justice Nagu asserted a statutory obligation was cast on the police to register an FIR without any unnecessary delay on receipt of information regarding the commission of cognizable offences.

The court also took note of the state counsel’s contentions that the inquiry in the instant case was conducted to assess the veracity of allegations levelled in the first information. The statements of the complainant’s relatives were recorded and the matter was closed after approval of the senior police officers/officials.

Chief Justice Nagu observed the petitioner lodged another complaint on October 1 to the DGP, while referring to the incident of rape and murder regarding which the first information was given in May 2012. Directing the filing of the affidavit, the Bench fixed December 9 for further hearing in the matter.

Chief Justice Nagu, on previous hearing dates, had asserted the court ordinarily would have directed the petitioner to approach the magistrate concerned under the provisions of the BNSS. But it was inclined to interfere since the offence alleged was of murder.

Chief Justice Nagu had also asserted the procedural lapse ran contrary to the Supreme Court's guidelines in the case of “Lalita Kumari versus the State of UP”, which mandated FIR registration upon receipt of a complaint regarding a cognizable offence.

The court reiterated that the police was required to register an FIR, conduct an investigation, and file either a closure or final report based on the findings, once a cognizable offence was reported.