Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(b) upon a police report of such facts;

(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.

(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu (supra) has held in paragraphs 11, 17 and 24 as under;

"11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Sec. 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Sec. 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Sec. 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.

"6. Having stated what lies within the domain of the investigating agency, it is essential to refer to the Constitution Bench decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1. The question that arose for consideration before the Constitution Bench was whether "a police officer is bound to register a first information report upon receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 Cr.P.C. or the police officer has the power to conduct a preliminary inquiry in order to test the veracity of such information before registering the same"? While interpreting Section 154 Cr.P.C., the Court addressing itself to various facets opined that Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. admits of no other construction but the literal construction. Thereafter it referred to the legislative intent of Section 154 which has been elaborated in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 and various other authorities. Eventually the larger Bench opined that reasonableness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for the registration of a case. Thereafter there was advertence to the concept of preliminary inquiry. In that context, the Court opined thus:

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu (supra) in para 11 has held that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Sec. 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Sec. 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Sec. 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.

18. As stated above the laid down in the case of Sakiri Vasu (supra), is reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sudhir Tambe, as referred to hereinabove.

19. Thus, from the aforesaid decisions, more particularly in the case of Sakiri Vasu (supra), it is crystal clear that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Sec. 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Sec. 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Sec. 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered. Thus, it is clear that the trial court has committed an error in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C praying for direction for registration of FIR, after the police did not registered the FIR though the petitioner made written complaint to the police authorities. The trial court has wide powers under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for issuing directions for registration of FIR. Under the circumstances, the impugned order is illegal and against the settled legal position and cannot sustain and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the trial court.