Law Finder DocId # 119567 Licensed to: Prashant Vikram Singh, Advocate Ayodhya Page 1 of 5

Product S.No.1022188685 Licensed to: Prashant Vikram Singh,

Advocate Ayodhya

This judgement ranked 1 in the hitlist.

Ramesh Kumari v. State NCT of Delhi, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id

# 119567

2006(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 197 : 2006(1) Apex Criminal

541 : 2006(2) SCC 677 : 2006(2) Cri.CC 145 : 2006 AIR
(SC) 1322 : 2006(2) AICLR 627 : 2006 CriLJ 1622 : 2006
(1) SCC(Cri) 678 : 2006(2) Scale 457 : 2006(2) SCR 403 :
2006(2) MPHT 308 : 2006(1) RajCriC 242 : 2006(2) KLT
404 : 2006(2) ECrC 103 : 2006(1) W.L.C. 405 : 2006(1)
CalCriLR 547 : 2006 ALL MR(Cri) 1187 : 2006(127) DLT
636 : 2006(1) GujLH 780 : 2006(40) AIC 715 : 2006(1)
CTC 666 : 2006 AIR (SCW) 1021 : 2006(2) AIR Jhar R.
290 : 2006(2) Supreme 243 : 2006(1) Crimes 229 : 2006
(2) PLJR 216 : 2006(2) JLJR 259 : 2006(2) M.P.W.N. 117 :
2006(2) L.R.C. 79 : 2006(2) B.L.Jud. 570 : 2006(1) Ker L.J.
922 : 2006(2) APLJ 19 : 2006(1) MadWN (Cri) 330 : 2006
(3) CLR 68 : 2006(2) CLR 369 : 2006(33) Orrisa Cri. R.
722 : 2006(1) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 410 : 2006(1)
Cri. App. R (SC) 257

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- H.K. Sema & Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 1229 of 2002. D/d. 21.2.2006.

Ramesh Kumari - Appellant

Versus

State NCT of Delhi & Ors. - Respondents

For the Appellant :- Ms. Indu Malhotra, Advocate.

For the Respondents :- Mr. Vikas Singh, ASG, Mr. S. Wasim A.

Qadri, Mrs. Anil Katiyar and Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocates.

IMPORTANT

FIR Report lodged with Police disclosing cognizable

offence - It is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC for Police
to register FIR - Genuineness or otherwise of the
information can only be considered after registration of the
case - Genuineness or credibility of the information is not a
condition precedent for registration of a case.

Criminal Procedure Code, Section 154 - Delhi Special Police

Establishment Act, 1946 Sections 5, 6 Report lodged with
Police disclosing cognizable offence - It is mandatory

Law Finder 8/1/2024

Law Finder DocId # 119567 Licensed to: Prashant Vikram Singh, Advocate Ayodhya Page 2 of 5

under Section 154 Criminal Procedure Code for Police to

register FIR - Genuineness or otherwise of the information
can only be considered after registration of the case -
Genuineness or credibility of the information is not a
condition precedent for registration of a case - In the
instant case complaint was against Police Officer - CBI
directed to register the case - Interest of justice would be
better served if the case is registered and investigated by
an independent agency like the CBI. 1991(1) RCR
(Criminal) 383 (SC) relied.

[Paras 3, 7 & 8]

Case Referred :-

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 383

(SC) : JT 1990(4) SC 650 : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

JUDGMENT

H.K. Sema, J. - The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated

24.1.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
The controversy in this appeal is confined to the non-registration
of the case by the police pursuant to a complaint dated 9.9.1997
and 13.9.1997 filed by the appellant. It is stated that the
appellant was in possession of the land. The stay order was
granted by the High Court protecting the possession of the
appellant on 14.8.1997 and it was extended by another order
dated 10.9.1997, in the presence of the other side. However, the
respondent Nos. 4 to 9 broke open the lock and removed various
articles on 9.9.1997 and 10.9.1997. We make it clear that we are
not entering into the merits of the case.

2. The grievance of the appellant is that an information of a

cognizable offence has been filed by the appellant before the
Station House Officer (SHO), Kapashera on 9.9.1997 and
13.9.1997. However, no case was registered by the concerned
SHO. Thereafter, the matter was brought to the notice of the
Police Commissioner, without any result. This has led the
appellant to approach the High Court by filing criminal writ
petition No. 108 of 1998. By the impugned order the High Court
was of the view that the appellant has filed a Contempt Petition
CCP No. 307/1997 and that is pending before the High Court. The
High Court found it difficult to direct to register a case on the
basis of the information filed by the appellant. The High Court
was also of the view that the appellant has alternative remedy
available to her, albeit, without indicating what is the alternative
remedy available to the appellant. The High Court ultimately also
observed that should respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be seized of
petitioner's complaint or representation, they shall also examine
and pass appropriate orders within three months.

3. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned additional solicitor general, at the

outset, invites our attention to the counter-affidavit filed by the
respondent and submits that pursuant to the aforesaid
observation of the High Court the complaint/representation has

Law Finder 8/1/2024

Law Finder DocId # 119567 Licensed to: Prashant Vikram Singh, Advocate Ayodhya Page 3 of 5

been subsequently examined by the respondent and found no

genuine case was established. We are not convinced by this
submission because the sole grievance of the appellant is that no
case has been registered in terms of the mandatory provisions of
Section 154(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Genuineness or
otherwise of the information can only be considered after
registration of the case. Genuineness or credibility of the
information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case.
We are also clearly of the view that the High Court erred in law in
dismissing the petition solely on the ground that the contempt
petition was pending and the appellant had an alternative
remedy. The ground of alternative remedy or pending of the
contempt petition would be no substitute in law not to register a
case when a citizen makes a complaint of a cognizable offence
against the Police Officer.

4. That the Police Officer mandatorily registers a case on a

complaint of a cognizable offence by the citizen under Section 154
of the Code is no more res integra. The point of law has been set
at rest by this Court in the case of State of Haryana and others
v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 383
(SC) : JT 1990(4) SC 650 : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. This
Court after examining the whole gamut and intricacies of the
mandatory nature of Section 154 of the Code has arrived at the
finding in paras 31 & 32 of the judgment as under :

"31. At the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the

basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence in
compliance with the mandate of Section 154(1) of the Code,
the concerned police officer 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 reliable or credible. On the
other hand, the officer in charge of a police station is
statutorily obliged to register a case and then to proceed with
the investigation if he has reason to suspect the commission
of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 of
the Code to investigate, subject to the proviso to Section
157. (As we have proposed to make a detailed discussion
about the power of a police officer in the field of investigation
of a cognizable offence within the ambit of Sections 156 and
157 of the Code in the ensuing part of this judgment, we do
not propose to deal with those Sections in extenso in the
present context.) In case, an officer in charge of a police
station refuses to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and
to register a case on the information of a cognizable offence
reported and thereby violates the statutory duty cast upon
him, the person aggrieved by such refusal can send the
substance of the information in writing and by post to the
Superintendent of Police concerned who if satisfied that the
information forwarded to him discloses a cognizable offence,
should either investigate the case himself or direct an
investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to
him in the manner provided by sub-section (3) of Section 154
of the Code."

Law Finder 8/1/2024

Law Finder DocId # 119567 Licensed to: Prashant Vikram Singh, Advocate Ayodhya Page 4 of 5

"32. Be it noted that in Section 154(1) of the Code, the

legislature in its collective wisdom has carefully and
cautiously used the expression "information" without
qualifying the same as in Section 41(1)(a) or (g) of the Code
wherein the expressions, "reasonable complaint" and
"credible information" are used. Evidently, the non-
qualification of the word "information" in Section 154(1)
unlike in Sections 41(1)(a) and (g) of the Code may be for
the reason that the police officer should not refuse to record
an information relating to the commission of a cognizable
offence and to register a case thereon on the ground that he
is not satisfied with the reasonableness or credibility of the
information. In other words, 'reasonableness' or 'credibility'
of the said information is not a condition precedent for
registration of a case. A comparison of the present Section
154 with those of the earlier Codes will indicate that the
legislature had purposely thought it fit to employ only the
word "information" without qualifying the said word. Section
139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1861 (Act 25 of
1861) passed by the Legislative Council of India read that
'every complaint or information' preferred to an officer in
charge of a police station should be reduced into writing
which provision was subsequently modified by Section 112 of
the Code of 1872 (Act 10 of 1872) which thereafter read that
'every complaint' preferred to an officer in charge of a police
station shall be reduced in writing. The word 'complaint'
which occurred in previous two Codes of 1861 and 1872 was
deleted and in that place the word 'information' was used in
the Codes of 1882 and 1898 which word is now used in
Sections 154, 155, 157 and 189(c) of the present Code of
1973 (Act 2 of 1974). An overall reading of all the Codes
makes it clear that the condition which is sine qua non for
recording a first information report is that there must be an
information and that information must disclose a cognizable
offence."

Finally, this Court in para 33 said :

"33. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that if any information

disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in
charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of
Section 154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has no
other option except to enter the substance thereof in the
prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis
of such information."

5. The views expressed by this Court in paragraphs 31, 32 and 33

as quoted above leave no manner of doubt that the provision of
Section 154 of the Code is mandatory and the concerned officer is
duty bound to register the case on the basis of such an
information disclosing cognizable offence.

6. Undisputedly, in the present case no case was registered

pursuant to the complaint dated 9.9.1997 and 13.9.1997 filed by
the appellant. It is also not disputed that the Contempt Petition
CCP No. 307/1997 filed by the appellant is also pending disposal

Law Finder 8/1/2024

Law Finder DocId # 119567 Licensed to: Prashant Vikram Singh, Advocate Ayodhya Page 5 of 5

before the High Court. It is, however, stated by the respondent

that the non-disposal of the contempt petition is due to the non-
prosecution by the appellant. Be that as it may, we are of the
view that the contempt petition has been pending since 1997 and
as such petition should be disposed of with a sense of urgency
otherwise the petition itself will lose all its force and the purpose
for which the contempt is initiated would be defeated.

7. In this case, admittedly, the complaint was filed against the

Police Officer. Learned counsel for the parties are not at variance
that in such a situation the interest of justice would be better
served if this Court directs the CBI to register the case and
investigate the matter.

8. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned additional solicitor general although

vehemently opposed registration of the case but he fairly
concedes that if at all the case be registered and investigation is
to be carried out, the CBI would be an appropriate authority to
register a case and investigate. We are also of the view that since
there is allegation against the police personnel, the interest of
justice would be better served if the case is registered and
investigated by an independent agency like the CBI.

9. We, accordingly, direct that the CBI shall now register a case
and investigate of the complaint filed by the appellant on
9.9.1997 and 13.9.1997. The CBI can collect the complaint from
the SHO, Police Station, Kapashera dated 9.9.1997 and
13.9.1997. The complainant will also provide photocopies of the
complaint dated 9.9.1997 and 13.9.1997 in case the original
complaint is not traceable in the Police Station. Since, the matter
is pending from 1997 the CBI is directed to register the case and
complete investigation within a period of three months from
today. We further clarify that by the aforesaid directions we are
not entering into the merits of the controversy of the case nor
casting aspersions on anybody including the local police.

10. We also request the Delhi High Court to expedite the disposal
of Contempt Petition CCP 307/1997 in any event not later than
three months from today for which parties shall give cooperation.
The Registry shall despatch copies of this order to the CBI and
Delhi High Court forthwith.

11. With the aforesaid direction the appeal is disposed of.

Appeal disposed of.

Law Finder 8/1/2024