The Karnataka High Court recently said that police has to register a first information report (FIR) when the complaint discloses a cognizable offence [Vittal v PSI of Bableshwar PS]..Single-judge Justice Suraj Govindaraj said that police officers not registering FIR in such cases would amount to dereliction of duty."It was but required for the police officer to register an FIR when the complaint discloses a cognizable offense. The complaint having been filed on November 18, 2022 and FIR not having been registered till date is impermissible and would also amount to dereliction of duty," the Court said in an order passed on July 20. .It was the case of petitioner that a complaint lodged by him on November 18, 2022 against certain individuals was not registered as an FIR by the police and no action was taken in response to it.The complaint alleged assault on the petitioner's daughter-in-law and also said that her cellphone was forcibly taken, accompanied by verbal abuse and death threats. These actions constitute punishable offences under the Indian Penal Code, it was alleged..Taking into consideration the facts of present case, the Court allowed the plea and directed the police to register FIR against the accused and investigate the matter.Pertinently, the Court directed the Director General of Police to issue necessary circular/SOP to all Station House Officers in respect of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari's case."The Director General of Police is directed to issue necessary circular/SOP to all Station House Officers in respect of the directions issued in Lalita Kumari's case at para 120 produced hereinabove with instructions to follow them scrupulously, the Circular/SOP to be issued both in English and Kannada, including the translation of para 120 in Kannada," the Court directed.The Court further directed the Director General of Police to provide Kannada-translated versions of the complete judgment to all Station House Officers.Advocates Ravichandra Jadhav and Prakash Jadhav represented the petitioner. Advocate Maya TR represented the respondent..[Read Order]
