Expressing serious concern over police not registering cases on complaints, the Madurai High Court bench today issued eight important guidelines on filing cases.
Passing a common order on 59 criminal original petitions, including by one G Thirumurugan, seeking to direct police to register FIR, Justice C T Selvam said the court had already directed that police peruse complaints and register a case if the same informed commission of cognizable offence. But even as per a committee report, 50 per cent of cases were not registered, he said.
The judge said even the committee of reforms of criminal justice system noticed the plight of many people due to non- registration of cases. It pointed to tendency of police to minimize the offence by not invoking appropriate sections of law.
Also Read
There was a tendency to ask informers to give a written complaint. In many cases, registration was delayed. Sometimes, police twisted facts to bring the case within the cognizable category though it was non-cognizable offence, the judge said, quoting from the committee report.
The judge said registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code if information disclosed commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
'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."
The judge said if the inquiry disclosed commission of a cognizable offence, FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ended in closing the complaint, a copy of its entry must be supplied to the first informant and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
The judge also said police officers cannot avoid duty of registering offence if cognizable offence was disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who did not register FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
He also said the scope of preliminary inquiry was not to verify the veracity or otherwise of information received but only to ascertain if it reveals any cognizable offence.
The judge said preliminary inquiry is to be done in cases, including matrimonial disputes/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and those where there is abnormal delay/lapses in initiating criminal prosecution.
These were only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry, he said.
While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time- bound and not exceed seven days. The fact of such delay and its causes must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
He directed that all information on cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, be mandatorily reflected in the Diary as also the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry.
He hoped the DGP would share the court's concern and do all in his power to ensure observance of law. The Judge recommended education, formation of monitoring committees, administrative action against erring personnel and issue of guidelines and instructions from time to time.
