Background
In this case, the petitioner, Sangita Devi, approached the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) through a writ petition, seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against respondents for an alleged crime. The petitioner claimed that despite filing a complaint regarding a serious offense, including sexual assault, the police had refused to register the FIR. The petitioner approached the Superintendent of Police, but no action was taken. Subsequently, she filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before the appropriate court.
The Magistrate issued a clear direction on October 7, 2016, ordering the police to register an FIR and conduct an investigation. However, the Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station Tikait Nagar, District Barabanki, ignored the order for four months. Due to this inaction, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, seeking a mandamus directing the police to comply with the judicial order.
Issues
- Can the police ignore a judicial order passed under Section 156 (3) CrPC for registering an FIR and conducting an investigation?
- What are the consequences of non-compliance by police officers with a court’s directive regarding FIR registration?
- Is the petitioner entitled to compensation for the delay and harassment faced due to police inaction?
Observations
The High Court took a stern view of the police’s refusal to comply with a clear judicial direction. It noted that:
- The registration of an FIR is mandatory when a cognizable offense is disclosed, as per Section 154(1) CrPC. The police have no discretion to ignore such information.
“…It is thus unequivocally clear that registration of FIR is mandatory and also that it is to be recorded in the FIR book by giving a unique annual number to each FIR to enable strict tracking of each and every registered FIR by the superior police officers as well as by the competent court to which copies of each FIR are required to be sent…” (Para 23)
- The Magistrate had already applied judicial mind under Section 156(3) CrPC before ordering the registration of an FIR. The police had no authority to question or delay the implementation of this order.
“In the considered opinion of the court. the police has no discretion not to register F.I.R. in a case in which direction has been issued by a Magistrate under Section 156(3). Cr.P.C. in such cases, as held in the above noted judgment, the Magistrate has already applied his mind in regard to prima facie commission of a cognizable offence, before issuing a direction under Section 156(3). Cr.P.C. it therefore follows that once a direction is issued by the Magistrate under Section 156(31. Cr.P.C. to register a case and investigate, law mandates that substance of the information is entered in the prescribed form and start investigation. The police in such cases has no discretion to delay registration of the case so as to verify facts, or even to consider whether cognizable offence has been committed.” (Para 19)
- Ignoring a judicial order for several months undermines the administration of justice and erodes public confidence in the criminal justice system.
“The court would be failing in its duty by merely disposing of this petition as infructuous, the crime having been registered. A large number of cases of this nature are coming up before this court wherein even though a judicial order is passed directing registration of case and investigation, yet the orders are ignored by the Station House Officers of the concerned Police Station in total disregard to the administration of justice and their statutory duties.” Para 10
- The delay in registering the FIR weakened the case, as evidence is often lost or destroyed over time, especially in cases of sexual assault.
“Needless to say that on account of delay in registering the crime and consequent investigation, the evidence is not only lost or diluted, the victim of offence is also harassed and tormented. After offence of rape is committed, the victim in any case is physically and mentally shattered. To make the matter worse, the crime was not registered, whereas it is the statutory duty of the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station to register a cognizable case. Even after passing of order by the Magistrate, the Station Officer ignored the order for no reason.” (Para 18)
Outcome and Significance
- The court imposed exemplary costs of ₹50,000, to be recovered from the responsible police officers, as a deterrent against such misconduct.
“Vide order dated 7.2.2017, above extracted, we asked for a cause as to why exemplary costs in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- be not imposed for non-compliance of order dated 7.10.2016. No satisfactory or other explanation has come forth from the Station Officer. Rather Superintendent of Police, Barabanki has made it evident through his affidavit that Station Officer was at fault in ignoring the order passed by the Magistrate.” (Para 19)
- The High Court reiterated that compliance with judicial orders is not optional and that law enforcement officers must act with diligence. (Para 20)
- The Superintendent of Police was directed to ensure compliance with court orders in future cases. (Para 21)
This judgment is significant in upholding judicial authority over law enforcement and reinforcing the principle that police officers cannot arbitrarily refuse to register FIRs when directed by a court. It also underscores the right of victims to seek legal remedies when law enforcement agencies fail in their duty.
The judgment in the case Sangita Devi v. State of U.P & Ors. 2017 (5) ALJ 705, Allahabad High Court may be read here:
(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this primer has been worked on by Shailendar Karthikeyan)
Related:
Law on Arrest and Detention: Know your rights!
Fundamental Rights Upheld: Court rules delay in communicating grounds of arrest violates due process