Delay in FIR
Ranganath
(Querist) 14 December 2009
This query is : Resolved
ld counsels,
How the delay of over one month to register an FIR by police will be viewied in a matrimonial dispute.
thanks, pls clarify
adv. rajeev ( rajoo )
(Expert) 14 December 2009
Criminal case is no way connected to the matrimonial case. Both are entirely different proceedings.
Arvind Singh Chauhan
(Expert) 14 December 2009
It depends whether the delay is well explained or not.
N.K.Assumi
(Expert) 14 December 2009
Yes, delay has to be explained as pointed out by Arvind.
aman kumar
(Expert) 14 December 2009
if delay is well explained give reasons is acceptable than fir delay is not important
S.KARUNAMOORTHY
(Expert) 14 December 2009
criminal and matrimonial offences are not one and the same.. it is irrelevent how it could be viewed in matrimonial case for delay in FIR. It is the duty of the police to file FIR and the same has to be reported in the concerned magistrate. If the FIR has not filed yet, then get 482 direction from concerned High Court.
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 14 December 2009
it depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case....whether the delay was unnecessary.
no doubt there is a line of difference between serious offences and offences of lesser intensity...but the allegations contained in FIR will be seen to find whether the delay in lodging FIR was fatal to the case or not.
Rajan Salvi
(Expert) 14 December 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 271 OF 2007
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 982 OF 2007
ALONG WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 219 OF 2007
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 982 OF 2007
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2031 OF 2007
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 271 OF 2007
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 982 OF 2007
Sandeep Rammilan Shukla )
an Indian inhabitant of Mumbai )
Aged about 28 years, Occupation : Business )
residing at 197/7, Kamal Kunj, Kingcircle )
CHSL Ltd., R.G. Shukla Marg, Sion East )
Mumbai 400 022 ).. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra )
through the Secretary )
Home Department, Mantralaya )
Mumbai. )
2
2) The Director )
Anti Corruption Bureau For Greater )
Mumbai having office on the first floor )
of Madhu Industrial Estate, Pandurang )
Budhkar Marg, Lower Parel )
Mumbai 400 013. )
3) The Commissioner of Police )
Police Headquarters, Crawford Market )
Mumbai 400 002 )
4) The Senior Inspector of Anti Extortion )
Cell, Crime Branch, Mumbai. )
5) The Senior Inspector of Police )
Nagpada Police Station, Nagpada )
Mumbai 400 009 )
6) Dhananjay Kamlakar )
Deputy Commissioner of Police )
Crime Branch, Mumbai )
7) Anil Mahabole )
Police Inspector through DCP )
Crime Branch, Office of the )
Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. )
8) Rajendra Nikam )
SubInspector
of Police )
through DCP, Crime Branch )
Office of the Commissioner of Police )
Mumbai. )
9) The Director )
Central Bureau of Investigation )
3
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi ).. RESPONDENTS
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 219 OF 2007
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.982 OF 2007
Chandresh Chimanlal Shah )
Aged about 40 years, Occupation Business )
Residing at 304, Pleasant Park Society )
65, Peddar Road, Mumbai 400 026 ).. APPLICANT
VERSUS
1) Sandeep Rammilan Shukla )
an Indian inhabitant of Mumbai )
aged about 28 years, Occupation )
Business, residing at 197/7, Kamal Kunj )
King Circle CHS Ltd., R.G Shukla Marg )
Sion (East), Mumbai 400 022 )
2) The State of Maharashtra )
through the Secretary )
Home Department, Mantralaya )
Mumbai 400 032 ).. RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2031 OF 2007
Smt. Vimal Appaso Lohar )
Age 36 years, Occupation : Household )
R/o Mankapur, Tal. Chikkodi )
District Belgaum ).. PETITIONER
4
VERSUS
1) Chief Secretary of Home Ministry )
of State of Maharashtra )
Mantralaya, Mumbai. )
2) Inspector General of Police )
of State of Maharashtra )
Mumbai. )
3) District Superintendent of Police )
Kolhapur, Bavada Road Kolhapur )
District : Kolhapur. )
4) Asst. Police Inspector )
Kurundwad Police Station, Kurundwad )
Tal. Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur. ).. RESPONDENTS
Mr S M A Kazami, Senior Council, Mr Zuber Ahmad and
Mr B P Pandey for the Petitioner in W.P. No.982 of 2007.
Mr S R Borulkar, Public Procecutor a/w Mr A R Patil,
Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.
Mr Kiran C Shirguppe for the Petitioner in W.P. No.2031 of 2007.
CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND
S.J. VAZIFDAR & A.A. SAYED, JJ
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 10TH
5
SEPTEMBER2008
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 8TH OCTOBER 2008
JUDGMENT (Per Swatanter Kumar, C.J.)
101. The balanced and practical view in law necessarily is
neither to amplify jurisdiction or power nor to curtail it unnecessarily.
The law commands a person holding a public office to discharge his
duties in accordance with the law and without delay. In terms of the
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, police officer in charge
of a police station cannot avoid the responsibility to record information
as contemplated by the provisions of Section 154 read with the Police
Manual and the Standing Orders issued by the State of Maharashtra.
Analysis of the above referred judicial decisions thus persuade us to
hold that the judgment in Shyam Sundar's case (supra) does not state
the entire law correctly. The statement of law spelt out in paragraph
142
57(b) needs to be clarified to bring it in line with the enunciated law.
Intrinsic command of law requires an officer in charge of a police
station to record the FIR instantaneously. Further to bring this
principle in harmony with the ground realities, it can safely be stated
that in exceptional and rare cases, the concerned police officer could
penultimately defer instantaneous recording of FIR in the prescribed
register (Form No.P.M. 37e) but only and only after recording the
information received in the Daily Diary Register while also mentioning
reasons for adopting such a course and then to proceed to make
preliminary inquiry. Such preliminary inquiry needs to be concluded
in the shortest possible time and which, in our opinion, should not
exceed two days then the officer should record the FIR as prescribed
in law without fail and/or to adopt any course of action as permissible
in law. This would satisfy the requirements of achieving legislative
object as well as would be suiting the ground reality by adopting a
more practical approach. As it may not be possible for the Court to
accept ideologue view devoid of any flexibility in exceptional or rare
cases. Having deliberated at some length on various aspects of the
143
legal controversies raised in the present reference, in our considered
view the following principles can be culled out as correct exposition of
law :
(a) The expression “shall†appearing in Section 154 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure is mandatory.
The Section places an `absolute duty' on the part
of the `officer in charge of a police station' to
record information and place substance thereof in
the prescribed book, where the information
supplied or brought to his notice shows
commission of a cognizable offence.
(b) As the law does not specifically prohibit
conducting of a limited preliminary inquiry, preregistration
of FIR in exceptional and rare cases
by the officer in charge of a police station, he may
penultimately thus enter upon a preliminary inquiry
144
in relation to information supplied of commission of
a cognizable offence but only and only upon
making due entry in the Daily Diary/Station Diary/
Roznamachar instantaneously with reasons as
well as the need for adopting such a course of
action. Such inquiry should be completed
expeditiously and in any case not later than two
days. Thereafter, the FIR should be recorded in
the prescribed register and/or the officer should
take any other recourse permissible to him strictly
in accordance with the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure under which he is empowered
to investigate. Such cases can be illustrated by
giving an example i.e. when the information
received in regard to commission of a cognizable
offence would patently cause absurd results or
report of happening of events, authenticity of
which ex facie is extremely doubtful.
145
(c) The law inescapably requires the police officer to
register the information (FIR) received by him in
relation to commission of a cognizable offence.
Under the Scheme of the Code, no choice is
vested in the police officer between recording or
not recording the information received. The
concerned officer would aptly take recourse to
clause (a) as a normal rule while could adopt the
course of action as stated in clause (b) above as
an exceptional and rare case.
102. Having answered the questions of law, we direct the Writ
Petitions to be listed before the appropriate Bench for disposal in
accordance with law.
CHIEF JUSTICE
146
(S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.)
(A.A. SAYED, J.)
sng/Sep.08/res.js/crimisc271-07final.sxw
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 14 December 2009
It is necessary to clarify which matrimonial criminal case, you want to cite/facing.
If it is under section 498A/406 IPC then there is neither benefit in favour of the accused nor is any loss to the complainant by filing FIR balated by one month and if it under section 304A then it requires well explained and definitely its benefit shall go to the accused.
