KATHIRAVAN  V/S COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner in this case filed a complaint against the respondent under sections 482, 154, and 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Police Officers of the police stations concerned register first information reports based on the complaints given by them, as they have not chosen to register first information reports so far.

There are several cases in which this court on earlier occasions had granted such reliefs directing the police to register first information reports when this court was satisfied that the allegations made in the complaints were sufficient to make out cases of commission of a cognizable offence.

ISSUES

• Whether the police have the right to arrest the person based on the allegations made.
• Whether the information is of non-cognizable offence or the investigation scenario.

ARGUMENTS  

The appellant in support of section 154 of Cr.P.C. that they said section has been interpreted in an empty number of cases to mean that the duty cast so mentioned according to section 154 of Code is that the police officer in the situated place i.e. Coimbatore who was in charge of the police station. His due duty to register a case if the complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence is mandatory.  Which was questioned by the plaintiff itself.  

The contention of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that the general rule that the police officer is bound to register a case, if the complaint discloses the commission of cognizable offences, shall be read with a rider that in appropriate cases the police shall have the discretion to conduct a preliminary enquiry before registering a case. 

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that if the context in which the observations were made in the Supreme Court cases cited by the respondent reply on that is, the police officer can conduct a preliminary enquiry before registering a case to satisfy himself regarding the genuineness of the allegations made therein even if the complaint discloses the commission of a  cognizable offence; that the police are duty bound and they must register cases when the complaints disclose the commission of cognizable offences but only in exceptional cases, a preliminary enquiry can be conducted before registering a case. 

The learned counsel for the petitioners has also stated that it shall be open to the police to conduct a preliminary enquiry before registering a case. It has also been contended in the case files of the petitioner that if the police have given the power to conduct a preliminary enquiry before registering a case, the argument lies here that there can be a possibility that the police officer in charge can mislead and misuse the power not only against the accused but also against the individual involved in rendering the information.

This will not only create a problem in the functioning of the legislature and will lead to corruption in the management. After getting the information of the offence the police officer should in the prescribed time note down all the relevant information leading to the formation of the case. The information so recorded should be made in proper bookkeeping of all the non-cognizable offence way as to make it more convenient for the above authorities. The book should be maintained in such form as per the rules of the State Government for the magistrate. 

Also, in the defence of the plaintiff, No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate. He can only investigate if he holds the power to take the case to trial. after getting the power from the magistrate the police officer so in charge should have to function according to the officer i.e. holding the same power. 

Also if the person has committed more than one offence then but one of them is cognizable then that person will still be held by the officer in charge. 

JUDGEMENT 

Every information so relating to the case of a cognizable offence, the police officer should in writing make the FIR on the information so provided by the informant and the police has to properly write down the facts and the entire scenario so narrated by the informant and the sheet should be duly signed by the informant too. Also, the substance hence entered in a book shall be kept by police officers in a systematic form as the State Govt. has so prescribed on their behalf. 

A copy of the information given by the informant so recorded should be given to the person free of cost. If the police officer in charge refuses to record the information then the informant can write to the Superintendent of police about the ongoing scenario. 

Therefore, if the police so satisfied with the information about the offence of cognizable nature then the police officer can decide on the appointment of the person in charge to take the matter to investigation. Or he can even appoint his junior subordinate to do so. Therefore the appointed man will hold the same power equivalent to that of the officer. 

Similarly, the police officer can only investigate cognizable cases, as for non-cognizable cases he requires permission from the magistrate himself. having the power to investigate non-cognizable cases or commit the same for trial within the terms under Section 155(2) of the Code but subject to Section 155(3) of the Code.  

In the above-mentioned case, it was held that the police Officer in each one of the following cases is directed to either register a case or to file the sheet on the information for the court i.e. for the magistrate as per Section  155(1) Cr. P.C,

 if the complaint opens about the inauguration of a non-cognizable offence alone and in case the police Station House Officer concludes based on the cognizable or non-cognizable offence then the complaint can be shut as no more exposure is available in the complaint so registered. 

REFERENCES 

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1163552/

This article is written by Lakshika Tomer, Chanderprabhu Jain College Of Higher Studies, an intern under Legal Vidhiya