Disregard to the Provisions of Cr.P.C leads to the Violation of Article 21: Supreme Court

WHAT DID THE SC SAY? 

• In Shipra Dey v. State of West Bengal & Ors., the Apex Court sent directions to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah u/s 200 Cr.P.C for examination of the complainant. 
• The Hon’ble Court noted that every criminal investigation must take place according to the provisions of Cr.P.C and conform to Article 21 of the Indian constitution. 
• The Court further noted that the police authorities are duty bound to register an FIR if the information given reveals a cognizable offence. 

WHAT IS THE CASE ABOUT?

• In this case, a writ petition was filed by the widow of Snehomoy Dey who was a victim of custodial violence. 
• The writ petitioner had two fold grievances. 
• Firstly, that the police authorities did not comply with the provisions of Cr.P.C, thus violating her fundamental right under Article 21.
• Secondly, that the police authorities did not register an FIR even after submitting information revealing a cognizable offence.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES: 

• The writ petitioner contended that the police authorities failed to discharge its duty to file an FIR on the basis of the information given by her. 
• Further, the petitioner contended that her husband was called to the police office without following the procedures laid down under Sections 41A and 160 of Cr.P.C.
• The respondent contended that an FIR has already been registered on the basis of the information given by the petitioner and a chargesheet has also been created, therefore, a second FIR on the basis of other complaint of the petitioner cannot be registered.

OBSERVATION OF THE COURT AND DECISION: 

• The Ld. Court observed that the police authorities acted in gross violation of the provisions of Cr.P.C while calling the petitioner’s husband to the police station.
• The Court further observed that the police authorities neglected their duty to register an FIR on the basis of the information provided by the petitioner.
• The Court issued directions to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah u/s 200 Cr.P.C to deal with the case and properly examine the complainant.
• Furthermore, the Court rejected the respondent’s request to put a stay of operation on the order.

What do you think about the decision of the Court? Let us know in the comments section below! (sixth slide)