Birajit Sinha v. The State Of Tripura

IN
THE
HIGH
COURT
OF
TRIPURA
A
G
A
R
T
A

L
A

CRL.
PETN.
No.
71
of
2014
Sri
Birajit
Sinha,


 

 
 
  
 
 
  

 Petitioner
V
e
r
s
u
s
1.
The
State
of
Tripura,


        ! "! #$

 % &'

'!

 ( % &'

'!

 (   )*+



2.
The
Director
General
of
Police,

#$ ! 

 % &'

'!

 (   )*+



3.
The
Superintendent
of
Police,

 ! "! #$ ! 

  

  


4.
The
Officer,in,charge,

 
     

  

















Respondents
BEFORE
THE
HON'BLE
MR.JUSTICE
S.
TALAPATRA
,    -.

&
)$  .. ! )$  , 
 
 -.)#
     * -08.05.2015
  $   *!   +   
   *- Yes
No
√

 JUDGMENT
&
ORDER
(ORAL)



"  . 

&
   
  
 


  .. !   


 * 

 
& 
.)#
  

 *    . % &

 /!    )          

  . '  )!      '*  
   

   
  

 !
   01023042 [2]  !
 *( .

&
  
  


 !

  !          


    !

       &
  
     *
     
 $  *   !

  


    * 5      "  
     !!   31403046) ( )  
        40433046

  )    "!  ! #$ ! 



   )


 7
 #       8' ! 9 &    
  
     
 
&   !

  &
    


 !

      :
&
!     * !  ;

*   ! !

*   :

 +  
 ' 
 . /!  )          

 &    !

 































































































































 *   .



          &
   *
   
 
  
   
       

 !  !

 &   $$           :

    !

         % .!    .

    %  "  .


       !



     

    ) *     

   !   
  
%413042   
60<=430 =630 7' *&   4>8394>8 98989  $   ' )4<??&
 *
  ./! 
 
 !

   
 
  
  (!

 *   !         *
    
   !

   "  
 *     !

     $ 
   $ !!

* 5     ) * 
   ( !   $*   

 !!      
 &
  *
   )    !

  &
   $   

! 
!     (
      #    8#9      !

 :

&
    7   !


   :

 
         !

    
 
   *
   
   (  
 $
 *   

 
 

! * 5      .

    [3]
.

&
   
  
 

 !

       
  :

 































































































































 &   $ 
&7  

 ! 

  !

 :

    !

 

:


    &  
 
  *
   & 5
 *
 
  

   

:  !

   !   
   
!      
 
   "  
  
 !

     
& &   
&  !

      $     

    !     .

       

  ! 

     
 
     .

     $  
!  * &!

*

  * 5    
[4]
7 Lalita
Kumari
vs.
Government
of
Uttar
Pradesh
and
others,
    (2014)
2
SCC
1,
   ( 
 *   - 73.
The
legislature
has
consciously
used
the
expression
"information"
in
Section
154(1)
of
the
Code
as
against
the
expression
used
in
Section
41(1)(a)
and
(g)
where
the
expression
used
for
arresting
a
person
without
warrant
is
"reasonable
complaint"
or
"credible
information".
The
expression
under
Section
154(1)
of
the
Code
is
not
qualified
by
the
prefix
"reasonable"
or
"credible".

The
non
qualification
of
the
word
"information"
in
Section
154(1)
unlike
in
Section
41(1)(a)
and
(g)
of
the
Code
is
for
the
reason
that
the
police
officer
should
not
refuse
to
record
any
information
relating
to
the
commission
of
a
cognizable
offence
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
the
registration
of
a
case.































































































































 74.The
above
view
has
been
expressed
by
this
Court
in

    

    


which
is
as
under:
32...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)
[    :
who
has
been
concerned
in
any
cognizable
offence,
or
against
whom
a
reasonable
complaint
has
been
made,
or
credible
information
has
been
received,
or
a
reasonable
suspicion
exists,
of
his
having
been
so
concerned;
or'
The
new
Sections
41
(1)(a),
(b)
and
(ba)
are
as
follows:
41.

(1)
(a)
who
commits,
in
the
presence
of
a
police
officer,
a
cognizable
offence;
(b)
against
whom
a
reasonable
complaint
has
been
made,
or
credible
information
has
been
received;
(ba)
against
whom
credible
information
has
been
received
that
he
has
committed
a
cognizable
offence.]
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
Section
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.
75.In  !

#$


   %%&

'this
Court
held
as
under:
65.
The
legal
mandate
enshrined
in
Section
154(1)
is
that
every
information
relating
to
the
commission
of
a
"cognizable
offence"
[as
defined
under
Section
2(c)
of
the
Code]
if
given
orally
(in
which
case
it
is
to
be
reduced
into
writing)
or
in
writing
to
"an
officer
in
charge
of
a
police
station"
[within
the
meaning
of































































































































 Section
2(o)
of
the
Code]
and
signed
by
the
informant
should
be
entered
in
a
book
to
be
kept
by
such
officer
in
such
form
as
the
State
Government
may
prescribe
which
form
is
commonly
called
as
"first
information
report"
and
which
act
of
entering
the
information
in
the
said
form
is
known
as
registration
of
a
crime
or
a
case.
66.
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
police
officer
concerned
cannot
embark
upon
an
inquiry
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
Section156
of
the
Code
to
investigate,
subject
to
the
proviso
to
Section
157
thereof.

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.
67.

It
has
to
be
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
Sections
41(1)(a)
or
(g)
of
the
Code
wherein
the
expressions
"reasonable
complaint"
and
"credible
information"
are
used.































































































































  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
190(c)
of
the
Code.

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.
68.
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.
[Emphasis
added]
[5]
"$ *   Lalita
Kumari
vs.
Government
of
Uttar
Pradesh
and
others,
.

&
   
  


 !

   
  

  
































































































































   ! 
  !

 *
 
 





 * 5    


     !

  &    !

       
   *
     
 "   
       6?3   '' [6]
. ) #
     

 *      
   
 !

  
            

  !

 :

    

    !

 = !            
 $  &     !

    
  :

 "  
    !

    *   :

  
 !      $  ! .

  
* $   

   !

       7
 !

 

   *  $   *
     
    

    !

        [7]


'
 &  5  !
  )   *
     
 
 '       
    $ 
     *
  . $  
 ' 
        & 
     

$
 *  
'
    &   

    *   
 
 *  
$ 


      
 $  !  

& *     ' 
 ' &   
   































































































































 * 
    *       
    (   Lalita
Kumari
vs.
Government
of
Uttar
Pradesh
and
others

  
$ - "in
view
of
various
counter
claims
regarding
registration
or
non,registration,
what
is
necessary
is
only
that
the
information
given
to
the
police
must
disclose
the
commission
of
a
cognizable
offence.
In
such
a
situation,
registration
of
an
FIR
is
mandatory.
However,
if
no
cognizable
offence
is
made
out
in
the
information
given,
then
the
FIR
need
not
be
registered
immediately
and
perhaps
the
police
can
conduct
a
sort
of
preliminary
verification
or
inquiry
for
the
limited
purpose
of
ascertaining
as
to
whether
a
cognizable
offence
has
been
committed.

But,
if
the
information
given
clearly
mentions
the
commission
of
a
cognizable
offence,
there
is
no
other
option
but
to
register
an
FIR
forthwith.
Other
considerations
are
not
relevant
at
the
stage
of
registration
of
FIR,
such
as,
whether
the
information
is
falsely
given,
whether
the
information
is
genuine,
whether
the
information
is
credible
etc.
These
are
the
issues
that
have
to
be
verified
during
the
investigation
of
the
FIR.
At
the
stage
of
registration
of
FIR,
what
is
to
be
seen
is
merely
whether
the
information
given
ex
facie
discloses
the
commission
of
a
cognizable
offence.

If,
after
investigation,
the
information
given
is
found
to
be
false,
there
is
always
an
option
to
prosecute
the
complainant
for
filing
a
false
FIR."
[8]
"$ *  * &
       (   Lalita
Kumari
vs.
Government
of
Uttar
Pradesh
and
others,

'

             
  
 

    *    
  *  *      !
  
 *   !

* ! *
  
   

  ! =!

       































































































































      *  
 '      

    
8    '*  
       )         &

$ *   
9
   
     @ 
 A@' 
 A       
$    
 
   
  

    *        
 +  
 
$       
 

 
 )


  
   #        

* 

     $ *  *    
$ !  
  JUDGE