Ensure FIR whenever complaint reflects cognisable offence: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, August 8
More than a decade after a five-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court directed the registration of FIR in cases of cognisable offences, the State of Punjab has been found violating the mandate, compelling the Punjab and Haryana High Court to reiterate the directions.
The Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal directed the State of Punjab to ensure “whenever a complaint is made, which reflects commission of cognisable offence, an FIR ought to be registered in terms of the law laid down by the apex court in Lalita Kumari’s case”.
Taking up a petition filed against the State and other respondents by National Anti-Crime and Human Rights Protection of India through counsel Molly A Lakhanpal, the Bench also directed compliance with the provisions of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act in “letter and spirit”.
The directions came in a case where a doctors’ team on November 28, 2017, complained to a Sub-Divisional Magistrate that they were prevented from inspecting a hospital and “illegally detained physically by restraining them from exercising their duties under the provisions of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act”.
The State and other respondents, on the other hand, stated that the complaint was thoroughly looked into, but evidence was not found in support of the allegations and the matter was closed without lodging an FIR.
“It is surprising to note that from the complaint dated November 28, 2017, made by the team of the doctors, a prima-facie case for wrongfully restraining the team of doctors and also restraining them from doing their official duties was made out and both these offences are punishable under Sections 341 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, but despite disclosing commission of cognisable offences, the police did not register an FIR,” the Bench asserted.
The Judges also asserted the law on the point was clear in terms of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of “Lalita Kumari versus the State of UP”. It was categorically held that FIR registration was mandatory once the information or complaint revealed commission of a cognisable offence.
The Bench clarified that the Supreme Court made certain exceptions. The police could conduct an inquiry before FIR registration, but only to ascertain whether cognisable offence had been committed especially in complicated offences and special offences.
“However, in the present case, the offence was neither special, nor involved moral turpitude/complicated questions of fact. Therefore, the police was obliged to register an FIR, which, however, was not done,” the Bench asserted.
The observation
Whenever a complaint is made, which reflects commission of a cognisable offence, an FIR ought to be registered in terms of the law laid down by the apex court in Lalita Kumari's case. — HC Bench
