Lalita Kumari Vs. State Of Up & Ors. 2014: Guidelines Relating To Registration Of Fir

• The Supreme Court of India rendered a landmark judgment in the Lalita Kumari case requiring police to register First Information Reports (FIRs). The case started when four guys reportedly kidnapped and sexually assaulted a woman called Lalita Kumari, but the police would not file a report about it.
• Lalita Kumari filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court in 2008, requesting that the police register her complaint. In 2013 , the Supreme Court held  that police cannot do a preliminary investigation prior to filing a formal complaint (FIR) in situations where there is information revealing a crime that is punishable by law.
•  The court also held that the police must document their justifications for not filing a formal complaint (FIR) if they have reasonable suspicions that no cognizable offense has been committed. The court further stated that this decision established the rule that police must file a  complaint report (FIR) if the claims reveal a crime that is punishable by law, and they cannot decline to file a complaint just because they do not believe the complainant's assertions.
•  The Lalita Kumari case has been viewed as a critical milestone in guaranteeing that police officers fulfill their obligation to file First Information Reports (FIRs) and conduct more open and accountable criminal investigations. It has aided in keeping police personnel from evading their duty to file FIRs and given victims a stronger opportunity of receiving justice.

The following guidelines were  laid down in the Lalita Kumari case .

1. If a person  approaches the police officer and makes a complaint that discloses the cognizable offense,.it is the prima facie responsibility of the police office to lodge an FIR.
2.  No police officer can conduct a preliminary inquiry before lodging a FIR.
3.  The court also states that whenever the person approaches the police and the officer has a reason to believe that such facts are not falling under the cognizable offense, the officer must specify the reason in the writing  For not lodging and FIR.
4.  The police officer must register the complaint in the record diary, which is commonly known as the station diary .
5.  The police must deliver a copy of the FIR to the complainant.
6.  The police officer must take prompt action to investigate the matter and take the necessary steps to collect the evidence.
7.  The police officer does not avoid lodging an FIR on the basis of jurisdiction if the offense is a cognizable offense.

• The landmark judgment states that the Lalita Kumari case has been viewed as a critical step toward guaranteeing that police officers fulfill their obligation to record First Information Reports (FIRs) and conduct more public and accountable criminal investigations. Because of these standards, victims now have a higher chance of receiving justice, and police officials are less likely to shirk their duty to submit FIRs.

Impact

• The landmark judgment of Lalita Kumar vs. State of UP, in which a supreme court states guidelines for mandatory registration of FIR, even though the case does not fall under the jurisdiction  of that police station, but police officer cannot deny the complainant the right to lodge a FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• The Justice Verma Committee's recommendation—which was made in the wake of the 2012 Nirbhaya gangrape case—to implement zero FIR.
• A number of Supreme Court and High Court rulings also support the implementation of a zero FIR.
• The Supreme Court declared in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP (2014) that filing a First Information Report (FIR) is required if information reveals the conduct of a crime that is punishable by law.
• From a combined reading of the provision and the precedents, it can be stated that the only difference between 'FIR' and 'Zero FIR' is that an FIR is registered where the incident has occurred within the jurisdiction of a particular police station, and a zero FIR can be lodged at any police station irrespective of where the incident has taken place. A zero FIR is admittedly more efficient and is meant to provide quick redressal to the victim so that timely action can be taken after registration of the FIR.
•  The impact of this prior judicial pronouncement on the BNSS is such that the concept of the ZERO FIR is introduced in Section 173(1) of the Bhartiya Nargrik Suraksha Sanhita.