ASSIGNMENT

LALITA KUMARI vs. STATE OF U.P

SUBMITTED BY : DIPANSHU CHAUDHARY

46019210059

2ND YEAR

1ST SEMESTER
TABLE OF CONTENTS :-

 Fact of the case

 Issue of the case
 Interpretation of the word ‘Information.’
 Analysis
 Judgment of the case

 FACT OF THE CASE

A Writ Petition was filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 by Lalita
Kumari (minor) through her father. The main grievance stated in the Petition
was that in 2008, the father submitted a written missing person report at the
police station in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh after failed attempts of tracing his
daughter. The police officer refused to register the FIR under Section 154 (“the
Provision”) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Code”). Thereafter, the father
approached the Superintendent of Police, and on his directions, the FIR
registered.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt of U.P. and Ors.,
acknowledged that the law surrounding compulsory registration of FIR was
uncertain due to conflicting judgements passed by the Courts. This uncertainty
led to a referral to the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case
of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh.

 ISSUES OF THE CASE

There has been a lot of discrepancy and uncertainty relating to whether the
registration of the FIR is mandatory under the Provision or whether a discretion
lies with the police officer to conduct a preliminary inquiry, prior to the
registration of the FIR. From these discrepancies, four critical issues of
interpretation arose for the Court to decide.

1. Whether the Provision should be read purposively, in light of the purpose

and circumstances behind the enactment of the Provision, while balancing
the rights of the accused as well as the victims? 
2. Whether the words of the Provision should be construed literally to mean
the registration of an FIR is mandatory upon the disclosure of a
cognizable offence?
3. Whether the word ‘shall’ appearing in the Provision should be interpreted
as mandatory or discretionary?
4. Whether the use of the word ‘information’ within the Provision meant
that the FIR could only be registered after the police officer is satisfied
with the credibility or reasonableness of the information disclosing the
cognizable offence?
5. Rules

 Interpretation of the word ‘Information.’

To interpret ‘information’ appearing within the Provision, there is
a presumption that the deliberate omission on the part of the Legislature is
not a mistake and that the legislator intended to say what has been stated in
the statute.  Further, there is an application of the principle of casus
omissus. Under this, the Court is not competent to supply an omission for
that will constituent as lawmaking. The primary focus of the Courts is jus
dicere non facere that is to declare or decide the law.

 Analysis

The Court places its reliance on the primary rule of interpretation – the literal
rule of statutory construction to focus on the language of the Provision. The
literal rule, in its purest form, is an inflexible rule which interprets the statute
only through its wordings. The Indian Courts have been applying this rule of
construction in instances where the words are clear, unambiguous and plain. In
the present context, when oral information is provided disclosing a cognizable
offence, the police officer shall reduce the information into writing either by
him or under his direction. The plain reading of the Provision does not lead to
any absurdity or ambiguity, nor does it refer to any discretion of some sort;
therefore, the rule of literal construction was adopted by the Courts.

The Court actively rejects other forms of interpretation such as purposive

interpretation as this can only be resorted to if the outcome of reading the
statute literally, produces absurd and unreasonable meanings which are
incompatible with the statute in question. The Court does not place sole reliance
on this reasoning. While examining the outcome of purposive interpretation, the
Court is satisfied that the consequences of granting discretion will be far-
reaching and ultimately result in the violation of the victims’ rights. Hence,
there exists no discretion.

Next, the Court derives legislative intent through the case of Bhajan

Lal, which categorically stated that the mandate of the Provision makes it
clear that upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence, the
police officer cannot embark upon an inquiry to test the veracity of the
information provided or refuse the registration on the same grounds. Hence,
the only condition which is quintessential for the recording the FIR is the
disclosure of a cognizable offence. The police officer has no option but to
record the information when plain words of the Statute are given their literal
meaning.
 Judgment of the case
 The court decided that it is necessary to register a FIR under sec.154 if
the information indicates a cognizable and no preliminary inquiry is
nedded,however if there is no information of a cognizable offence but
requires an inquiry,a preliminary inquiry maybe be conducted to judge if
there is a revelation of a cognizable offence
 If the inquiry discloses a cognizable offence FIR must be filed,if not then
a copy of the entry of closure must be supplied to first informant,not later
than one week
 Causes in which preliminaryinquiry may be made before the registration
of FIR
o Matrimonial disputes /family disputes
o Commercial offences
o Medical negligence cases
o Corruption cases
o Cases where there is abnormal delay in initiating
criminal prosecution. There are only illustrative not
exhaustive

 The preliminary inquiry must be completed in seven days and all

information shall be recorded in general diary. This judgement given by
the supreme court is still applicable.