Lalita vs State of UP - Case Analysis

Introduction of Lalita vs State of UP

Lalita vs State of UP is a landmark decision regarding the issue of mandatory registration of First Information Reports under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The case was initiated through a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution by Lalita Kumari, a minor, through her father i.e.,Bhola Kamat. The petition sought a writ of habeas corpus directing the police to locate, produce, and protect Lalita, who had been kidnapped.

Historical Context and Facts of Lalita vs State of UP

The case revolves around Lalita Kumari who was a minor filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution through her father, Bhola Kamat. The petition sought a writ of habeas corpus directing the police to locate, produce and protect the kidnapped minor child.

Initial Complaint

The petition stated that the police did not take action when Bhola Kamat approached the local police station with a written complaint on 11th May, 2008. It was only after that he approached the Superintendent of Police that an FIR was registered. However, no further action was taken to locate Lalita or to apprehend the accused.

Intervention of the Supreme Court

A writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court and the Court accordingly issued notices to the relevant authorities. The Court directed them to approach concerned Magistrates for directives to the police. The Court asserted that if the police officers failed to comply as a result they would face contempt charges.

Reference to the Larger Bench

The two-judge bench referred the case to a larger bench due to inconsistent rulings on this issue in prior judgments. A three-judge bench, upon hearing arguments from both sides noted the divergent rulings and decided it was appropriate to refer the case to a five-judge Constitution bench. 

Five-Judge Constitution Bench

The five-judge bench was tasked with the registration of FIRs under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue addressed in Lalita vs State of UP

The main questions which was addressed in this case were-

• Whether it is mandatory for Police Officer to register a FIR upon receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or does the police officer has the power to conduct a “preliminary inquiry” in order to test the veracity of such information before registering the FIR?

Legal Provisions involved in Lalita vs State of UP

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution

Article 32 guarantees the fundamental right to approach the Supreme Court by filing a writ petition for the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.

Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Section 154 of the Code states the procedure to be followed by a police officer when receiving information that discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.

Section 154(3) provides that if any police officer refuses to register an FIR under Section 154(1)-

Such a person can forward such information to the concerned Superintendent of Police. It also provides that-

• Reading out the information that has been reduced to writing to the person providing it. 
• Signature of the informant on the information reduced in writing or written complaint. 
• Recording of information of offences relating to sexual offences by a woman officer. 
• A copy of the FIR shall be given to the informant free of cost.

Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Section 156 of the Code empowers the police to investigate any case relating to the cognizable offence even without any order from the magistrate. Section 156(3) provides for such investigation by the order of a Magistrate.

Judgment and Impact of Lalita vs State of UP

In Lalita vs State of UP, the Supreme Court issued guidelines regarding the mandatory registration of FIRs under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 which are follows-

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering an 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.
• 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.
• 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:
• Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
• Commercial offences
• Medical negligence cases
• Corruption cases
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

Conclusion

The decision in this case made it clear that the police must register an FIR if the information given shows that a cognizable offence has been committed. The Supreme Court held that no preliminary inquiry should be done in such cases. The Court also provided guidelines for when a preliminary inquiry is allowed and it must be completed within a set time frame to avoid delays.