Agamjot Singh

Intern at Ubadvocate

Email- [email protected]

Contact no.-8929091313

Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 clearly points out that an FIR could be registered
only in case of cognizable offences. Cognizable offences refer to those offences where the police are
permitted to arrest the accused without a warrant. In such offences, the police can Suo moto take the
cognizance of the offence and it does not require any sanction from the court in order to begin the
investigation. On the other hand, non-cognizable offences are those in which police cannot make a
conviction without taking a prior assent from the court. Schedule I of the Criminal Procedure Code
clearly distinguishes as to which offences are cognizable and which are not. With regards to the persons
who have the authority to file an FIR for a specific offence, either the victim himself/herself, or a friend
or relative of the victim, or any other person who has the knowledge that the crime has been committed
can file an FIR. The person who informs the police about the commission of the offence is called an
informant. According to the sub-section (1) of Section 154 Cr.P.C., when an informant informs the
officer-in-charge of a police station about the commission of a cognizable offence, it is the duty of the
said officer to record the same in the book that has been prescribed to them by the State Government
for this purpose. If the informant has provided the information in oral form, then the officer must
reduce it in written form or get it reduced in written form under his supervision. As soon as the writing
down is done, the content must be read to the informant and then get it signed by the informant once
he is satisfied by the same.

After all these steps are over, then the substance would be entered under the daily diary register.
However, if the information has already been given in the form of a written complaint which is signed by
the informant, then the entry could be made in the daily diary register straight away. The foremost
question that arises here is, whether the officer-in-charge of the police station can deny registering the
FIR in any circumstance? The answer to this is affirmative. The denial by the police officer to file an FIR is
considered legal typically in two scenarios, firstly, if the complaint is about an awfully trivial issue, or
secondly, if that particular police station does not have the territorial jurisdiction of that offence.
With regards to the first situation, it is unusual for a cognizable offence to be a nugatory matter so this
condition would hardly apply here. However, the refusal to register FIR based on the second ground is
pretty common and the solution to which is the “Zero FIR”. The concept of a Zero FIR is that if a person
is unable to file an FIR in the police station with correct territorial jurisdiction for a particular offence due
to any reason, then he may file the same in any other police station within his/her reach, and such
police station would later transfer the report to the police station which actually has the jurisdiction for
that offence. However, if the police officer refuses to lodge the report on some unexplainable grounds
or even without giving any reason, it’d definitely be considered illegal. Then the aggrieved would have to
seek remedy for the same as provided under the law, which has been discussed next.

Statutory Remedy

As provided by Clause (3) of Section 154 of Cr.P.C., if a person is refused by an officer-in-charge of a

police station to register his report, then such person has an option to send the content of the
information of crime in written form to the concerned Superintendent of Police via post so that the
information could be recorded and investigated upon.

After receiving the information, if the SP is contended with regards to the disclosure of a cognizable
offence based on such information, then he would either examine the case by himself or command any
other subordinate police officer to do the same in accordance with the Code. Also, the investigating
officer would have the same powers as the officer-in-charge of the police station with respect to the
investigation.

Judicial Remedy

If the remedy u/s 154(3) Cr.P.C. doesn’t prove to be effective, then the informant is advised to directly
file a private complaint before the concerned Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) r/w Section 190
of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under this, the said Magistrate is empowered to take the cognizance of
the case on receiving such a complaint and direct the police to investigate the case.

Latika Kumari case

The most crucial landmark judgement when it comes to matters relating to the registration of FIR is the
Latika Kumari v. Govt. Of UP & Ors. The Supreme Court in this judgement laid down eight guidelines that
are to be followed by the police till date. The essential question that arose in the case of Latika Kumari
was, “whether it is binding for the police to lodge an FIR when it is informed about the occurrence of an
offence which is cognizable in nature?”. The Apex Court affirmatively answered this question and ruled
that it is obligatory for the police to lodge an FIR on receiving information that discloses the commission
of a cognizable offence.

The Court further held that if it is clear that a cognizable offence has been committed, the police is not
required to do any kind of preliminary inquiry. It means that the preliminary inquiry is valid merely to
the extent of determining whether the offence committed is cognizable or not. Furthermore, the Apex
Court clearly mentioned the kind of cases in which the preliminary inquiry could be conducted by the
police, which are family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and
cases with abnormal delay. Also, the Court ordered that the preliminary inquiry must be started within 7
days of receiving the information of offence.

Consequences of non-registration of FIR

The police officers who are at default regarding the refusal of registration of FIR in case of cognizable
cases may face several consequences owing to their inaction. If no action is taken by the concerned
authorities even after the aggrieved had gone for all the above-mentioned statutory as well as judicial
remedies then he may opt for the following actions.
The aggrieved person may file a writ petition in the respective High Court for the issuing of Writ of
Mandamus against the delinquent police officers, and then the Court would direct them to come up
with the reasoning as to why they did not lodge the report.

Another alternative that the aggrieved person could go for is to file a Writ Petition in the respective High
Court to seek compensation if such non-lodging of the report has caused the person deprivation of his
right to life and personal liberty as guaranteed by Article 21 of our Constitution.

Additionally, the criminal law of our country also deals with this deplorable practise which is carried out
quite ordinarily these days. Section 166A of the Indian Penal Code lays down punishment for a public
servant who fails to record information. Specifically, sub-section (3) of the section provides that failure
on the part of a public servant to register any information u/s 154(1) of the Cr.P.C. with relation to the
offences u/s 326A, 326B, 354, 354B, 370, 370A, 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB,
376E or 509 of the IPC, would attract this section and the said public servant shall be punished with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which must not be less than 6 months but may extend to 2 years, and
he shall also be liable to fine.

Conclusion

The practice of refusal on the part of police officers to register FIR, no matter how barbaric it seems, is
pretty common. The reasons could be many, such as protecting the accused persons who are powerful
and have high contacts or harassing the poor victims, or irresponsible behaviour of public servants, etc.
Whatever may be the reason, it is the victim who suffers. The victim who already has been through
trauma due to the commission of an offence is put through the whole agony once again when s/he is
denied for lodging the report.
Whenever a cognizable offence is committed, the filing of an FIR is technically the first stage for
initiation of criminal proceedings, and hence the first step for seeking justice. It means when the
aggrieved person is denied to record his complaint, he is denied justice altogether. There is no doubt
that various remedies have been provided to aggrieved persons for the said circumstances by the law,
but all this running around to seek these remedies merely to get the complaint filed sometimes delays
the justice to such an extent that it feels denied.

It is indisputable that this action of police officers is among the most atrocious practices of our legal
system because to report an offence that is committed to someone is one of the most basic rights of
that individual and ironically it is taken away by our protectors themselves. This practice clearly leads to
lawlessness and hence it must be put an end to

This opinion is based upon the youtube video https://youtu.be/zGn9AnXBPck of jeevan prakash , AOR ,
Supreme court