IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2014

: PRESENT :
HON’BLE MR. D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WRIT PETITION No. 9353 / 2014 (GM-RES-PIL)

BETWEEN

MR. A D RAMANANDA
S/O A.G.DORAISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
ADVOCATE, R/AT NO.232, 53RD B CROSS
17TH D MAIN, 3RD BLCOK, RAJAJINAGARA
BANGALORE-560010.
... PETITIONER
( BY SRI A D RAMANANDA, PARTY-IN-PERSON. )

AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTRY
R/BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
HON'BLE MINISTRY OF
PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND LAW
R/BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR

GENERAL OF POLICE
STATE OF KARNATAKA
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

4. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

... RESPONDENTS
( BY SRI LAXMINARAYAN, A.G.A. )
 2

WRIT PETITION FILED PRAYING TO DIRECT THE

RESPONDENTS TO STRICTLY FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS
/GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT & HON'BLE
SUPREME COURT REGARDING REGISTRATION OF
COMPLAINTS [F.I.R] & TO TAKE SUITABLE ACTIONS AGAINST
THE ERRERING POLICE OFFICERS IN FAILURE TO REGISTER
THE COMPLAINTS [F.I.R] DISCLOSING CONGNIZABLE
OFFENCE DISCLOSED IN THE COMPLAINT, ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

D.H.WAGHELA, CJ (ORAL) :

1. The present petition, in the nature of Public Interest

Litigation, is filed by learned advocate and argued as party

in person. The prayer in the petition is for a direction to

the respondents to strictly follow the directions and

guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect

of registration of F.I.R. under the provisions of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, as also to take appropriate action

against the Police Officers, who fail to register F.I.R.

2. Learned counsel has relied upon the observations

made in the judgment of three judge Bench of the Apex

 3

Court in Aleque Padamsee Vs. Union of India, reported in

2007 Cri.L.J. 3729, as also the other judgments related to

the subject. He also pointed out from the recent judgment

dated 12.11.2013 of the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari Vs.

Government of U.P. that the directions, interalia, as under

have been issued by Constitution Bench of the Apex Court:

“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
 4

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
 5

the matter without satisfactory 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.”

3. Learned A.G.A. has appeared on advance copy for the

respondents and has stated on instructions that the

respondents are conscious about the above directions of

 6

the Apex Court and the Police Officers in charge of the

Police Stations and other higher officers are already

informed about the above directions so as to ensure strict

compliance with them. He further stated that, if any case

amounting to breach of the above directions is brought to

the notice of the Government, appropriate action shall be

taken to remedy the situation and ensure that such breach

or violation is not repeated or committed.

4. In view of the above statement being made and

recorded, the petition is not pressed at this stage, and

accordingly it is disposed with liberty to file a fresh petition,

if and when a case of violation of the above guidelines and

directions is reported on the basis of reliable material.

Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-
JUDGE

ckc/-