http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1047 of 2006

PETITIONER: Lallan Chaudhary & Ors

RESPONDENT: State of Bihar & Anr

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/10/2006

BENCH: H.K.SEMA & P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1047     OF  2006 Arising out of  SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 620 OF 2003

H.K.SEMA,J.

       Leave granted.

       This appeal is preferred by the accused, nine in numbers,  against the judgment and order dated 8.10.2002 passed by  the High Court whereby the High Court directed the concerned  Magistrate to proceed in the matter in accordance with law as  contained in Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.           We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well  as the learned public prosecutor for the State.           The controversy involved in this appeal is in short  compass being purely a question of law and it may not be  necessary to recite the entire facts leading to the filing of the  present appeal.         Complaint Case No. 223C/1996 was filed before the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sikrahana  at Motihari, District   East Champaran by Yogendra Prasad - the respondent herein,  to the effect that on 7.6.1996 at about 6.00 PM the accused \026  Lalan Chaudhary, Din Bandhu Chaudhary, Sanjeev Kumar @  Ghutan, Lalbabu Prasad, Bhola Shah, Nageshwar Shah,  Bhagrit Raut, Joka Majhi and Suruj Raut  having formed  unlawful assembly and armed with Lathi, Fatta, Farsa,  Nalkatwa and Rifle, illegally entered in the residential house of  the complainant and indulged in ’Loot-Paat’ of household  articles and also teased female members of the family.  When  the complainant objected to the accused, the accused persons  gave severe beating with slaps, fists and fatta and caused  bodily injuries to the appellant.  The complaint further  disclosed that the accused looted away the household articles  comprising utensils, gold articles, silver articles, wearing  apparels etc. including cash.  The total value of the loot was  Rs. 19,000/-, as detailed in the complaint.  In the said  complaint case itself, filed before the Sub-Divisional Judicial  Magistrate, the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448,  452, 323 and 395 were disclosed.           It appears that the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,  before whom the complaint was lodged, had endorsed the  complaint to the SHO, Police Station \026 Ghorasahan, District  East Champaran to register an FIR and to investigate.  The  SHO of the concerned Police Station, however, registered the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

case under Sections 452/380/323/34 IPC against the  accused.  Ultimately, the charge-sheet was submitted by the  Police only under Sections 452/323/34 IPC.  It would,  therefore, clearly appear that no case was registered against  the accused for offences disclosed in the complaint under  Sections 147, 148, 149, 448 and 395 IPC and no investigation  was carried out by the Police in respect of the aforesaid  sections of law and committed grave miscarriage of justice.           Section 154 Cr.P.C. reads: "154. Information in cognizable cases. \026 (1) Every  information relating to the commission of a  cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in  charge of a police station, shall be reduced to  writing by him or under his direction, and be read  over to the informant; and every such information,  whether given in writing or reduced to writing as  aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it,  and the substance thereof shall be entered in a  book to be kept by such officer in such form as the  State Government may prescribe in this behalf.

(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub- section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to  the informant.   

(3) Any person, aggrieved by a refusal on the part of  an officer in charge of a police station to record the  information referred to in sub-section (1) may send  the substance of such information, in writing and  by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned  who, if satisfied that such information discloses the  commission of a cognizable offence, shall either  investigate the case himself or direct an  investigation to be made by any police officer  subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this  Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of  an officer in charge of the police station in relation  to that offence."               Section 154 of the Code thus casts a statutory duty upon  police officer to register the case, as disclosed in the  complaint, and then to proceed with the investigation.  The  mandate of Section 154 is manifestly clear that if any  information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an  officer in charge of a police station, such police officer has no  other option except to register the case on the basis of such  information.           In the case of Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi)  and Ors. (2006) 2 SCC 677 this Court has held that the  provision of Section 154 is mandatory.  Hence, the police  officer concerned is duty-bound to register the case on  receiving information disclosing cognizable offence.   Genuineness or credibility of the information is not a condition  precedent for registration of a case.  That can only be  considered after registration of the case.           The mandate of Section 154 of the Code is that at the  stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the  information disclosing a cognizable offence, the police officer  concerned cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the  information, laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or  otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the  information is not relevant or credible.  In other words,  reliability, genuineness and credibility of the information are  not the conditions precedent for registering a case under  Section 154 of the Code.   

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

       In the present case, undisputedly, the cognizable offences  disclosed in the complaint, were under Sections 147, 148,  149, 448, 452, 323 and 395 IPC.  The complaint was filed  before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate and the same  was endorsed to SHO of concerned Police Station for  registering the FIR under Section 154 of the Code.  The  concerned SHO of the Police Station registered the case only  under Sections 452/380/323/34 IPC.  Section 395 IPC, which  had been disclosed in the complaint, was excluded from the  purview of the FIR and resultantly no investigation was carried  out by the Police in terms of Section 156 and 157 of the Code  of Criminal Procedure.  It is well settled principle of law that in  criminal trial, investigation is proceeded by an FIR on the  basis of written complaint or otherwise disclosing the offence  said to have been committed by the accused.  In the present  case, a grave miscarriage of justice has been committed by the  SHO of concerned Police Station by not registering an FIR on  the basis of offence disclosed in the complaint petition.  The  concerned police officer is statutorily obliged to register the  case on the basis of the offence disclosed in the complaint  petition and proceed with investigation in terms of procedure  contained under Sections 156 and 157 of the Code.  The FIR  registered by the Police would clearly disclose that the  complaint for offence under Section 395 IPC has been  deliberately omitted and, therefore, no investigation,  whatsoever, was conducted for the offence under Section 395  IPC.          It is unfortunate that the Trial Magistrate has failed to  notice that in the complaint filed before the Sub-Divisional  Judicial Magistrate an offence under Section 395 IPC has been  disclosed, amongst others.  The Trial Magistrate accepted the  charge framed under Sections 452/323/34 IPC mechanically  without application of mind.  The District and Sessions Judge  also failed to take notice the miscarriage of justice by the Trial  Judge.  It is, in these circumstances that the High Court has,  in our view, justly corrected the error committed by two  Courts.  In our view, therefore, the impugned order of the High  Court does not suffer from any infirmities.             Mr. Tripurari Ray, learned counsel appearing for the  appellant contended that the complainant has not challenged  the charges framed under Sections 452/323/34 IPC.  It is also  contended that the appellants are facing criminal trial for the  last 14 years and if the committal proceedings are initiated by  the trying Magistrate pursuant to the directions of the High  Court, it would impede speedy trial and the same would be  violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.  No doubt, quick  justice is sine-qua-non of Article 21 of the Constitution but,  when grave miscarriage of justice, as pointed out in the  present case, is committed by the Police Officer, the ground of  delay of disposal of cases or otherwise would not scuttle the  miscarriage of justice.  Similarly, we are of the view that in the  given facts and circumstances of this case, the accused  themselves would be liable to be blamed for the delay, if any.   With regard to the submission of the learned counsel for  the appellant that the complainant has not challenged the  non-framing of charge under Section 395 IPC, the same is not  borne out from the record.  In fact, an application was filed by  the learned Public Prosecutor before the trying Magistrate   under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for  alteration of charge under Section 395 of the IPC, which was  rejected by the trying Magistrate, which in our view  erroneously.           In the view that we have taken, we do not see any  infirmities in the impugned order of the High Court which  would warrant our interference.  The appeal is devoid of merits

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

and is, accordingly, dismissed.