Whether FIR lodged after closing of case on earlier inquiry conducted for unnatural death is maintainable?

 Learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that
the earlier or the first information in regard to the commission
of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirement of Section 154
of the Code and there cannot be second FIR or fresh
investigation of any subsequent information in respect of the
same cognizable offence. Learned senior counsel further
stressed upon that when the police had conducted inquiry on
the information and closed the case there is no point in
re-opening the case by filing FIR that too on the basis of
anonymous letters received by the brother of the deceased
after a lapse of 5 (five) years. In view of the above claim of
learned senior counsel for the appellants, it is imperative to
discuss the scope of ‘Inquiry’ under Section 174 of the Code in
order to ascertain as to whether the ‘information’ received
under Section 174 of the Code satisfies the requirement of
Section 154 of the Code.
Scope of ‘Inquiry’ under Section 174 of the Code:
10) The proceedings under Section 174 have a very limited
scope. The object of the proceedings is merely to ascertain
whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or
an unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause of the
death. The question regarding the details as to how the
deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what
circumstances he was assaulted is foreign to the ambit and
scope of the proceedings under Section 174 of the Code.
Neither in practice nor in law was it necessary for the police to
mention those details in the inquest report. It is, therefore,
10not necessary to enter all the details of the overt acts in the
inquest report. The procedure under Section 174 is for the
purpose of discovering the cause of death, and the evidence
taken was very short. When the body cannot be found or has
been buried, there can be no investigation under Section 174.
This section is intended to apply to cases in which an inquest
is necessary. The proceedings under this Section should be
kept more distinct from the proceedings taken on the
complaint. Whereas the starting point of the powers of police
was changed from the power of the officer in charge of a police
station to investigate into a cognizable offence without the
order of a Magistrate, to the reduction of the first information
regarding commission of a cognizable offence, whether
received orally or in writing, into writing. As such, the
objective of such placement of provisions was clear which was
to ensure that the recording of the first information should be
the starting point of any investigation by the police. The
purpose of registering FIR is to set the machinery of criminal
investigation into motion, which culminates with filing of the
police report and only after registration of FIR, beginning of
11investigation in a case, collection of evidence during
investigation and formation of the final opinion is the
sequence which results in filing of a report under Section 173
of the Code. In George and Others vs. State of Kerala and
Another (1998) 4 SCC 605, it has been held that the
investigating officer is not obliged to investigate, at the stage of
inquest, or to ascertain as to who were the assailants. A
similar view has been taken in Suresh Rai and Others vs.
State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 84.
11) In this view of the matter, Sections 174 and 175 of the
Code afford a complete Code in itself for the purpose of
“Inquiries” in cases of accidental or suspicious deaths and are
entirely distinct from the “investigation” under Section 157 of
the Code wherein if an officer in-charge of a police station has
reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is
empowered to investigate, he shall proceed in person to the
spot to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case. In
the case on hand, an inquiry under Section 174 of the Code
was convened initially in order to ascertain whether the death
is natural or unnatural. Learned senior counsel for the
12appellants claims that the earlier information regarding
unnatural death amounted to FIR under Section 154 of the
Code which was investigated by the police and thereafter the
case was closed. On a careful scrutiny of materials on record,
the inquiry which was conducted for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the death is natural or unnatural cannot
be categorized under information relating to the commission of
a cognizable offence within the meaning and import of Section
154 of the Code. On information received by P.S. Mulana, the
police made an inquiry as contemplated under Section 174 of
the Code. After holding an inquiry, the police submitted its
report before the sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ambala stating
therein that it was a case of hanging and no cognizable offence
is found to have been committed. In the report, it was also
mentioned that the father of the deceased-R.P. Sharma (PW-1)
does not want to take any further action in the matter. In view
of the above discussion, it clearly goes to show that what was
undertaken by the police was an inquiry under Section 174 of
the Code which was limited to the extent of natural or
unnatural death and the case was closed. Whereas, the
condition precedent for recording of FIR is that there must be
an information and that information must disclose a
cognizable offence and in the case on hand, it leaves no matter
of doubt that the intimation was an information of the nature
contemplated under Section 174 of the Code and it could not
be categorized as information disclosing a cognizable offence.
Also, there is no material to show that the police after
conducting investigation submitted a report under Section 173
of the Code as contemplated, before the competent authority,
which accepted the said report and closed the case.
12) In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the
investigation on an inquiry under Section 174 of the Code is
distinct from the investigation as contemplated under Section
154 of the Code relating to commission of a cognizable offence
and in the case on hand there was no FIR registered with the
P.S. Mulana neither any investigation nor any report under
Section 173 of the Code was submitted. Therefore, challenge
to impugned FIR under Crime No. 194 of 2005 registered by
P.S. Bhilai Nagar could not be assailed on the ground that it
was second FIR in the garb of which investigation or fresh
investigation of the same incident was initiated.
 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 775 OF 2013
Manoj Kumar Sharma & Ors. .... Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. .... Respondent(s)

Dated:AUGUST 23, 2016.
R.K. Agrawal, J.
Citation:AIR 2016 SC 3930

Print Page

Highlights of SC Judgment of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P

Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 

 Ss. 154, 155, 156 and 157 - FIR in cognizable case - Registration of - Whether is mandatory or police officer has option,

discretion or latitude of conducting preliminary inquiry before registering FIR - Mandatory registration of FIR on receipt of

information disclosing a cognizable offence as the general rule - Situations/cases in which preliminary inquiry is

permissible - Scope of, and safeguards to be followed in cases where such preliminary inquiry (time-bound) is

permissible - Held, the registration of FIR is mandatory under S. 154, if the information discloses commission of a

cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation - This is the general rule and must be

strictly complied with - However, where information received does not disclose a cognizable offence a preliminary inquiry

may be conducted to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not - Also, matrimonial disputes/family

disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases, or cases where there is abnormal

delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution are illustrations and not exhaustive of all cases which may warrant

preliminary inquiry - Emphasised however, that scope of preliminary inquiry even when permissible in such limited

classes of cases, is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the

information reveals any cognizable offence - Proper stage for such verification of the veracity of the information received

is after registration of FIR, and not before registration of FIR - A preliminary inquiry should be time-bound and in any case

it should not exceed 7 days - The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry - If

preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of entry of such closure must be supplied to first informant

forthwith disclosing reasons therefor - If inquiry discloses commission of a cognizable offence, FIR must be registered -

All information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be

mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be

reflected, 

Print Page

Summery on judgment of lalita kumari v Govt of U P

Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the
information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary
inquiry is permissible.
The Court held:
i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses
commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity
for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable
offence is disclosed or not.
iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered.
In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such
closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must
disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is
disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information
received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information
received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the
facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be
made are as under:
a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
b) Commercial offences
c) Medical negligence cases
d) Corruption cases
e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example,
over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for
delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant
preliminary inquiry.
vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary
inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such
delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. 
viii) Since the General
Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we
direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR
or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the
decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.

Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors. on 12 November, 2013
(P. SATHASIVAM)CJI., DR. B.S. CHAUHAN J., RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI J., RANJAN
GOGOI J., S.A. BOBDE J.)

Print Page

Whether prosecution against accused can be quashed if police has failed to give Copy of FIR to informant?

The principal legal contention urged before the High Court in the Cr.M.P. filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR proceedings is that sub-section (2) of Section 154, Cr.P.C. contemplate that a copy of such information recorded shall be issued forthwith, free of cost to the informant, is a mandatory requirement. 

 The law on this issue can be summarised that in order to declare a provision mandatory, the test to be applied is as to whether non-compliance of the provision could render entire proceedings invalid or not. Whether the provision is mandatory or directory, depends upon the intent of Legislature and not upon the language for which the intent is clothed. But the circumstance that Legislature has used the language of compulsive force is always of great relevance.

If we apply this test to the provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C., we reach inescapable conclusion that the provisions of Section 154(2) are merely directory and not mandatory as it prescribes only a duty to give the copy of the FIR.

Supreme Court of India

State Rep.By Insepctor Of ... vs N.S. Gnaneswaran on 9 January, 2013

Print Page

Where the accused himself lodges the first information report, the fact of his giving the information to the police is admissible against him as evidence of his conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act to the extent it is non-confessional in nature

The Apex Court in Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (supra) has laid down :--

"17. Where the first information report is given by an accused himself to a police officer and amounts to a confessional statement, proof of the confession is prohibited by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. No part of the confessional statement can be proved or received in evidence, except to the extent it is permitted by Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The first information report recorded under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not a substantive piece of evidence. It may be used to corroborate the informant under Section 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict him under Section 145 of the Evidence Act in case the informant appears as a witness at the trial. Where the accused himself lodges the first information report, the fact of his giving the information to the police is admissible against him as evidence of his conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act to the extent it is non-confessional in nature. It would also be relevant under Section 21 of the Evidence Act but the confessional part of the first information report by the accused to the Police Officer cannot be used at all against him in view of the ban of Section 25 of the Evidence Act."

Bombay High Court

Bandu Yedu Metkari vs State Of Maharashtra on 22 February, 2002

Equivalent citations: 2002 BomCR Cri, (2002) 2 BOMLR 492, 2002 (2) MhLj 867

Bench: R Batta, F Rebello

Print Page