Take action against Police Inspector for not filing FIR in cognisable offence: Karnataka High Court

The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court recently directed Superintendent of Police of Uttara Kannad district to enquire into and take suitable action against a police inspector for failing to register a first information report (FIR) in a cognisable offence [Ganesh S Hegde v. State of Karnataka and Ors]..Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that the conduct of the said officer was in violation of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari. "Whenever any information is received disclosing a commission of a cognizable offence, there is no preliminary enquiry which is permissible and FIR is required to be registered by the person receiving information. It is only when the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, a preliminary enquiry could be conducted to ascertain if there is a cognizable offence committed or not. If the enquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence an FIR must be registered," the Court said.The Court added that in such cases, the top court had made clear that action must be taken against the erring officials, who do not register an FIR..In the present case, the petitioner's sister and her husband entered his property with 30 gundas (gangsters), and removed the standing areka nut crop in his property by force, and threatened him. The petitioner immediately made a phone call to the Inspector of Police of his taluka, the fourth respondent in the case, but no action was taken and the complaint was not registered. The petitioner then called the police helpline at 112 and informed them that the police inspector was not cooperative, and asked them to register the FIR, but to no avail. Subsequently, he approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police.The Deputy Superintendent directed the Inspector to take action, upon which the police inspector called the petitioner and his sister to come to the police station along with property documents, but did not register a complaint. .Upon this, the petitioner approached the High Court contending that since the respondents did not register an FIR, his rights were violated, as was the procedure prescribed the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others. .The Court framed the following issue for consideration:“Whether on information being received, either on the police helpline or directly to a police station, the concerned Officer can carryout a enquiry, requiring the complainant to attend an enquiry before registering of a complaint?”.The Court then reaffirmed that whenever any information is disclosed about a commission of a cognizable offence, an FIR is to be registered by the person receiving the information. It is only when the information does not disclose a cognizable offence, a preliminary enquiry can be conducted to ascertain if a cogniable offence was committed or not, the Court said. A preliminary enquiry may be made in matrimonial disputes/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases, or cases in which there is significant delay in initiating criminal prosecution, such as over 3 months' delay without a satisfactory explanation, it was stated. .The Court noted that once information which discloses a cognizable offence is provided by any citizen to the police helpline or to the police station, an FIR ought to be registered by the police. Trespass into the property of the petitioner and removal of areka nut crop is a cognizable offence under Sections 441 (criminal trespass) and 427 (mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees) of the Indian Penal Code. .The High Court, thus, directed the Tahsildar of the District to consider the representation of the petitioner and register the FIR in pursuance of the complaint submitted by the petitioner. Further, the Superintendent of Police was directed to enquire into the matter and take suitable action against the Inspector of Police concerned and submit a report to the Court, within a period of eight weeks. .Advocates Vishwanath Bhat and Narayan V Yaji represented the petitioner while Additional General Advocate Shivaprabhu Hiremath represented the State..[Read Order]