No. DGP/25/54/FIR283 2012 Mumbai, Date (9/12/2013 Ref: 1) DGP/23/54/Crime/2001, dated 03/10/2001, 2) DGP/23/S4/TIR-954/2008, daved 16/08/2008, 3) DGP/23/66/Wirit Peti3 72/2010, dated 15/10/2010, 4) DOP/23/S4/FIR/283/2012, dated 17/02/2012, 3) Standing Order No.20/2012, dated 26/09/2012, 6) Corrigendum No. DGP/23/54) FIR283/2012, dated 11/12/2012. Sub :- Registration of F.LR. Directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Criminal) No. 68/2008 Lalita Kumari V/s Govt of IP, & Others._.dated 12th Nov. 2013, mca He OI Circular : On the subject of registration of F.1.R.this-office had issued circulars from lime ta times mentioned above: It will be worth while tc mention here that the Hon'ble. Supreme Cour of Indie recently in the matter of Lalita Kumari Ws Govt. of U.P. & Others ( W.P(Criminal) Nov 68/2008 )/on 12 th Nov, 2013 has issued the. following directions whick ‘are bought to the netice of all Lait Commanders: (i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under section 154 uf the Cuide, if the information discloses commission of a vognizable otfence ‘and ne prelimmuary ingtitry is permissible in such # situation, ai) Tf the information reveivenl dues not disclose a éoanizable offence but indicates the necessity form inquiry, 4 preliminary Inquiry may be conducted only te ascertain whether copnizable offence is disclosed or not. Gil) If che inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR toust be registered, In) cuses where preliminary inquiry ends clesing the complaint, a copy of the entry of suvh closure must be supplied té the: first informant forthwith ind riot later than in one week, It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaints and net proceeding further. flv) The Police officer cannot aveul bis duty of registermy offence if cognivable offince Is disclosed, Acton mist be taken agains: erring oflicers who do nut register the TER if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence, ivy The scope of’ preliminary Inquiry is not te verliy the veracity or atharmise ef the Information réceived but only to ascertain Whether the infurmution reveals any coguizable offence. (vi) As towhartype and iti which ciises pretiminury inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the Gagts sind circumsiances of each case. The entegory af gaies jnowhich preliminary inquiry may be made are ay under?(a) Matrimonial disputes! family dispues ih) Commercial offences (c) Medical neghgence eases (da) Corruption cases (c) Cases where there is sbuormal delay / lgches. in initiating, criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without sativiuctorily explaining the reasons for delay. The afuresaid are only Ulustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminsiry Inquiry. (vi) = While ensuring and proweting the rights of the agcused and. the complaiijant, a preliminary inquiry should de made time bound and in iiny case it should nov exceed 7 days, The fact of such delay and the.causes.of Tt must be reflected in the General Diary entry. {viii} Since the General Diary / station Diary! Daily Diary is the record uf all information received in a police station, We direct that-all information relating 19 cognizable offence, whelher resulting in registeution of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Dinry and the decision te conduct a préliminary inquiry must also be: reilebted,) 33 mentioned aboye. 2. Inview of above méntionéed recent dircetions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of india, all Unit Commanders we directed to follow the above directions scrupulously and bring these instructions to the notice of al! subordinates is writing and further caution them thal ar failure to comply with the above directions would make (hem liable for distiplinary 8s well ax penul action. Zero jolerance will be exhibited to this issue. 3. The above mentioned |udgemeril is also evailable on the website of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as.en the Wabsite of Mahapolice. 4. ‘All Unit Commanders niust acknowledye the receipt of this circular personally und send the aoknowledgement to this office within a week trom the date of receipt of this cirtular. Any violations of the ubove mentioned direction shall be viewed seriously. 5 on Say ck ( Sanjeev Dayal } Direcior General of Police, Mahareshtra Stale, Mumbai. Te, All Commit, of Police ( Including Kiys.) All Supatg, of Police ( Including Rlys.) Capy to The Addl, Director General of Police, CID,, M.S,, Pune. ‘Yhe Addl, Director General of Police, Rly, M.S., Mumbel.The Addl. DGP PCR,M.S.. Mumba. The ADGSRPE TRAFFIC, TRG, All Range Spl. Inspecuor General of Police, Spl. Inspector General of Police, PAAY. MLS., Puns, DIG-P., Gadehiroli Range, Giidehireli. Copy te Dy. SP. Carputer Section, D.G.P, Office, 2. He should put dhis-citeular along with the judgement on the webshe of Muhupolice immediately. Copy of Judgement is enclosed,Y APPEAL No. 2470'0F 2071, i SRIMTHAL APPEAL N ase L CRIMINAL bPPEAL Noi: AND Rage 2aekamat for the issuance of @ writ of gatines. Corpus: or “divection(s) of ike -nature against the respondents. herait She Protection ¢f-his fminar daugnter who has bean-kidnapped, The qrlevance In the sald writ Petition ie-thas on-11.05.2008. a wither report was submitted ‘by the peti elére the officer in-charge-of the police station concerned who'did nae take any action Gn the same. ‘Thereafter, when the Superintendent of Police Was moved, ‘an FIR - was FagsChier es aNd Director: ee ‘the ettect that if Eteps _ ‘pene. tg register! the cask! inimadiately and for ‘apprehending the accused persons, failing which, Contempt proceedings must be iisted against such delinquent police officers if no sufficient cause is shawn, 4) Pursuant to the abave directions, wieq the matter was heard by the Very same Bunch in Leica Keanay Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Zope}J senior. courtsel - forthe petitioner, project his ‘sei “that “upon receipt or" _iifermation by a police officer in-charge oF a police station deaigelatlag a cogniz rative for Ble to ; register a oe URE and placed 0. Percourenn reliance pat mtwojudge Bench a 4 Submitted” that an uel hot obliged under i <= disclosing « commission of 2 copnizaple offence, te cegister >= & case rather ‘the 1 cre ion, Wes wyith fifn, In appropriate cases, to held some-sort oF preliminary Inquiry in relation to the veracity or dtharaize oF the accusations miada‘in the eae Ig Support of His Suiimission, he placed rellance upon two-Judge Bench decisions of thls Court in P, Sirajuddin ys, State of Madras (1970) 1 soc 595, Sevi vs. State of Tamil Macu 181 Supp SCC 43;arafully “antiysed Vartaus, Judoments ourt Ta Test, seem tier: We ictal has. én option of -eonduetlag some kind oot re Feuistering the FIR, Lifton of snide, BEd \otally WERGent yin dala darebibsnt al A rhe case cr tedical’ dactors cha afore of Sentosh Koma: One SueSH Sipe wobiets ee iIngulty Nad bao Sostulatud ‘bearstring an FIRS: xt laf} alse eh before 1 ES Teo 5 2) Heard. Mr, S. ‘ "the petitioner, Mr. ev mehWerathan, teamed AcditiGnal: Solicitor General for ‘Union of India, Mr. Sidnérth Luthray learned Abilis 3 ctor ceheral for the State oF Chhattisgarh; Me. Shekhar Naphade, Mr. ALK Dash, Ms, Vibha Datta Makino learned OF Maharestira, UP ne MP, lively, Mp _G. Sivabatamurugan, learned counsel. forrthe accused, Dr. Ashok Dhamija, learned: counsel:for the €BI, MF alvart Baidopsdhya, learried senior counsel for tie State of West for Counsel for the State. Fage 6= Raldsthaweied Ml Sudarshan $ Singh Rawat. 8) In "pear 10. answer, the eB issue pobed before Lis. oration in cognizable cases, a noah 0, oon sion OF a icogniz (2A copy oF the [nfai section (1) shallbe ee informant, (diary penton aug so a, p ecer in charge ob-a pilicesration ta recerd th; (Senator referred to in subsection (may Send Lie: Substance of such lntorhation, ji pity tig and by, poe the Super ntenrfentrat Police : thot such Information es emnmission. 2t a fagnizable affence, ‘shell ‘ettivar In: hime! or direct sit investiyatian te be made by any police officer sebordinite it hi provided by this Code, pind such efticeshall have ail the powers of an officer in-chare of the palma station in felotinn’te that olfence. iG. Police officer's power 2 Investigate sognizable caze. {1) Any officer In chade of a gulice station fay, without the order f 3 > Maylsspate, Invesiigaia any cognizable casa which « Court Ie Jutisdilion awerthe local ars=witnin the Of isd station wo.ild have pave to inquina Into entry Under tie = provislars of Chapter: xl. (Md proceeding of & potsshaliTat any stadecbe called In question onthe pralingd that the-casa was one ;which' such afficer wits pot * empowéred Lunde Thee section th (westigats, - [J.Any Magistrate einpeivbrad indar sattion 199 may sider such an Investigation #s above- mentioned, information is of a police: eigenen ‘Tosuspeck i While Ip cmpoiered unk aitel he’ shail farthivith send a [OS Magistrate empowered to take cogne nce of suchhifence upon. a police cepott gnd shall procend in _ eae ‘ar: rer om Nantes of his suhordingte: officers As7. Procedure eae aa (1) 1, trom N aiicer in charge nd, if necessary, iscovely and. arrest. of Thee, {al whan Information as t oftenge ts. alvon Byalpstg cayels Hotof a Gorlous | police station needinot subdrdinnte omecert to es 3 cornilsslvn oF any uch eon hy Name and the he officon incharge of a #60 In personver deptite o nuestigathary on tRie Spot) fo) Wit fear oe sine: isticer ‘in charg2 ala patio mae is nO sufficient grouncl For entering on ation, he shall not Wiest pate the. F ed fulthoe that-in elite ta. 3n atfance of cape, codiig of statenten ur Vict shall he conddeted af the tesdens: AMOC IN the place ef her choles and as fr a prvulidubte by a veainen police oltig Sve presence of her parents or guaidlan PaliElven GCSoUial Wurenror tne How llty. Fenech onthe cases riationed in clauser(ap ay () of tha provisa to sub-section (1), the officer In cha ‘geof the police Station shall stan in his report tls reasana for not: fully eat With the raguinsimunls of that-sub. sieeblion, he £4Se stictoned in clause (b) of the -soid proviso) the officer ghall steg toahvalty macity to tte informant any, Wsuch manner as may be preserbad by the Slate “Govemmenl, the fact that he will ppt ines ae OF Carini probe Wivaetigeitey =counsel; “while ‘egoining, the ‘conditions mentigned: in Section ist submitted lua ACL) is mandatary Be 9 iridi as the Us «a ao | Rateoplal Etc, &: ete, Ete (1973) 4 sec fi Patel vs. Agriculttral i Godhra and Ors. (1975) 2 SCC 482, 10}: PrsUpacthyay! by hates drawing Bur attention to the language used in Section 354(3)-of the Code, contended thet iimerely mentions ‘Information’ without prefixing' the Woris "Teasariable’ of "credible"! lh ofder to substantiate this claim, he felled on;the following decigiony, viz., Bhajan Lal (supra), Ganesh Bhavan Patel and Another V5. State of Maharashtra (1978) 4 Scc. 371,Aleque conte. and Others, vg, Union of india and Gthers: F007)" Be sé BF li “Rattiest ARirmart ieuprayy ere Ram! Lal Narang: vs. State (Deint Ag i stretion) (L979), 2sec 322 anetey Pee and Others NS, Statecof am a eg another (2qp6), Ag) sce 229, nese ee -orought to light various ‘advergeuimpacts: of al coin. police _btfigg to. hold mae Be : = aa FS - us lcamed Additional _ ; Union oF India subiiitted ation |S received Under sie KM, Viswan: aii ral appearing on be “Hata all’ the cases wher Sectldih 154 oF the : onypifer thepaliee sm ; feettinwith enter the Sh star maintained for rhe sald Rurbase. tt a same rtlates to commissian af a cognizable difence, Aceonting to fea med ASG, the police authorities hawe to diserétinnor authority, whatsoever, te yal such lniqnnausn Before decicing tO’ fedisler R.” He-also pointed: out that a police: ofiter, who proceeds to the spet uneer Sectinns "186 and 157 of the Code, an the basis of either a. ceyntic information or source information,-ar a rumour fds to immndiately,7 ebaitzabls offen ; Senit & ety oacat | station so thal the same can be Tesieered 35. FIR- Hoe also highlighted re ‘schem favloi: ta. the’ noe ok (supra) and Aleque ‘ déliareten upon the dis S th P. Strajudetia (tah «pee (supra), Sh Shikant (supra), Rajinder Singh fries (supra), jacob Mathew vs, State\of Pinj concluded his arguments by saying that If any infarrnation disciasing.a cognizable. offence is leg! hater apy charge -of a police ‘station Satistyiny, the feqylrorents of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said Paice officer bas no other option except to enter the suliernce Mieceut inthe jresciibed frm, that is to say, ta tegister dees) qe a ora P a the side zvarious Sieguards 4 Arovicedt ubder the coce ana filing a false,case. 5 12) BR Athol: Dna er eo ggel for: ine cB, ‘submitted gach “OF Le Ward Aoi Section 154(1) ae ain he. Code” clearly mandates Anat if the 2 ints mash -givert to qe aoices of : ety mission “of acognl “Tain. to_tegister the: eae in Such circu , then itis nee. “Aetording. to — ‘there isn optié + OF discretion given to the fe further contended that the word “shall” 8a het, mandate: and! is” unmistakably indicative: off diary intent. What 1s = ficcessary, according lo hin, Is only that the information given to .the poli aed Tetrion of a cognizable. offence: He also contended that Section, 184-oF the Code tises the woid “infarmaton’ SUTIpICIber aod does fot use the: qalified words such as “eredifile jaformation” ¢ “teasonable comptaint”, Thus, the, Intention of the Parllament is unequivecelly claar from the language employed that a meré Infermiation rélating to cornission“Bise felled a Bhajan, “Lan (stipre}: Ramesh Kiataet (supra), Aleque _ Padamsee {supra}; isi” Chaudhary sus i Tapan Kum, * & Rattanil) (Supra), B. Premanand leery Khob ee r Rabies, West bengal (2029 the registration“of FIR, Is cen under Sectlon ite af the Cote, if the: jnfermation’ cognizable offence -and, no. prelivninury inquiry is permissible fa such a situation, Fe that the preliminary inquiry conducted by the CBI, unter certain situations, “as provided under the! CAI rime Manuel, stands on a different footing-due te ine provisione relating to the CBI centalied ip the Delni Pata 13 M ant of Potice, Cl ys; Sinan! (2003""5 Le Secfis, efile Hiratal rehire, Fit‘Special: > Polls: uiiter Sections’ en ar: 5 siatine Cote. By Mr. Kalyan Banéiopadtiyay, lSarned seats eouriset appearing on Jet COURS | West “Benaat: a’ cognizable offence Is face é won ine jbE/ steps ta be followed by the police officer | pest to the ragistraGan of an FIR: With regard to te’ scope YF Scion 34 of the Code, He telecon HLM. Rishbud and thder Singh vs, State oF ~ Bathe AIR 15595 Sc isa, Shajan cal (supra), 5.x. Sharma vs, Bipen Kumar Tiwari (1970) 2 SCC 453, Union of India vs, Prakesn p, finduja (2803)6 Scc 195, Sheikh Hasib allas Tabarak vs, State of Bihar (L972) 4 SCC 774, Shashikent (supra), Ashok Koitar“Kishwar Jahar and Cthers: ean q sce 7585 = Padina Sundara Ane {Peau} and onbers Ws, state. of” TN, and Others (Po02) 405 Se 553, FP. Sirsfuctdin Tove falinder sian pates ee Bhagwan iS satequards inbuilt’ inthe Chie tor edna ea, | He aisd pointed’ dut that thi only ‘exception atates tar cade arislag. Under: the Prevention of Corupttin AEB tices CaS8S, sanction is: Nee Sry. before taking: ‘cognizance by the Magistiates’ and the public ‘suivants. ccorded some Kind of protection so Liat vexatious fases cannot be filed to harass them, 15) Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan, leamed counsel for the appellant in. Criminal Appeal Ne. Lait sr 2010, after tracing the edflier history, viz. the relevant Pravisiciie Fy the Code af Griminal Procedure of 4462, 1977 =~ eric “Age“ylso highlighted the recérimendations a Of the Report of the 412 Law Commission and insertion of Section 12 of the Sain ang ORF Act. 2613" ce igor with effect. 16} nied uttsubsequentty —aiter: considering the salient féatlirasér the Code, warious + z provisions ike, Sem ; 156(1), 2022), 464. ~ various: provisions: 4 Police Regulations, . leamed senior counsel contended that jn no case Jecoring OF FIR should be d&ferred iii veriieation arts tun ar othenwise in case of information relating to a, cognizable.offence. Inaddition to the same, he also relied ah various pronouncements of this Court, such 3s, Monindre vs. State of Punjeb (2001) 9 Scc 581. Page 36a bel supra}, Parkash = ich aan (supra Muitina Lal VE State” oF cys Himachal Pratesh 2992 Cries b J; 2558, Giridhart Lat Kanak Vs,. Siete ee pine 2 Cri Lj, 24 3 “atti: hak (supra), Ramesh Kumari (supra), Parkash Singh Badal (supra), ands leas wield fsupra}, which hated that a hs au ae: sealer an FIR, upon awe information disclosing cdi i ‘ cognigabie “offence and see fot exist under ur thie also “highlighted that ever tye which Occurs. Ina pollte station Bastin Gs ais ae Ina diary maintained st the ee “stat ‘ahi may be called-as the General Diary, Station Diary, 2r,Bally Diary. fe- uriderlided the relevance) 6S (Sener Diary by referring to “various: Judicial decisions such as Tapen, Kumar Singh (supra}, Re: Subbarstnam & Ors. AiR 1949, Madras 563. He further pointed out that, presentiy, Miroughoul the country, in, matrimenial, commercial, medical negligence and Corruption related offences, there exist provisions for conducting: an Inquiry ay preliminary indisdryBales ‘trough to our sick 5 o venous pdlice rules, prevalling' Inthe States of Punlab, ve ies Pr uh. Bornbay, ete, = nae | befor es iy aon FIR, elemptead to draw, ain lnfere from the which precedes the registration: of FIR Will eliminate the Misuse of the process, as, the-registration OF FIR served as an impedimett against a person for various important activities. tike: applying’ for a lobat a passport, ote: -Leumet, ase further Fequested _this ‘Court tO trae guidelines for — certain ‘category of cases In ivbich preliminary inquiry should be made, 18) wr snake Naphade, feamed io course Peweei rsuniuteed that “ardinarlly-th the: Station Hause Officer Gree should record a4’FIR Uaon receiving & complaint disctosittg ences but inv Certain 6 doubt “a I pa or fi information, hes 1fiave the Sinise. | ’ biarenonie wa “extreme {S the morent He lodwied, (the pallce officer must register an'FIR without any stiutiny whalsoeVer 3 Bn, axteriey ‘proposition and is Contrary to the mandate of Ati SIE-21 of the Constitution of India, sirnilazly, the other wareme point of view ts thatthe bollee officer must investigate the case- substantially belore registering an Fin, Accordingly, he pointed qut that both must be rejected and a ride path Wiust be chosen: He alsa submitted the following judoments, viz. siayaina cognizabio offence oe 1S pile station; than: I hasaces ve agist an FIR under f SPio| i (supra) and Seti Ease whch hot that before reais an FIR unwer Sectlon 154 of the: ‘cout I open (8 the the : Bolice officer te: hold.a preliminary inquiry. to.aseertain whether there is a (rine facie ase ot commission of a cognizable offence or not, -Accordirig to Iearhed senior counsel, Section 154 of the Code forms Part of a i¢hain of stdtutery pravisibns relatirg te favestivation and, thergfore, the theme of provisions of Sections 43, 15/, 167, 165) ete:, Mitist Rave @ fee it iS | heen held thatife-complaint ailesing cumimission of‘Wank case for investigation, ; He aiso eniohaaved that 7 : x Section 154 caniaing impite: ef ower of: the polite officer: te. Hold: areti@ninase inquiry: 1 ne! bona Ride possess serioys - doubts about the credibility oF the information given. to. pint By painting Our Criminal Law (amiendrhent) Act; 2013, “parlleulsrly, Section 156A, Me. Naphece -conliindedt» thet a5 Taras other cog “mentldhel 1A Section 20) In — Slasstone relating to re itera on the part's ae i z jacob Mathew cae | Gper fora pice ‘oflicer, ‘on reesipt of a complalat of a cognizable oie €, tp sotlsty bins SelF shat at Kast prima. fade. allego! ons Tyr levelled against the accussdin ebinptaint arecrey +s. He also contended that ne singte provision bf aistatute an be read and interpreted jn isolation, but the statue be tead a5 a wlicle. Accordingly, JOB prayed thay Se Provisions ef Sections 41,.57, 156, ESF, 153) be oO, 200 ate 202 of the Code must’ be read together mz piinted: out that Séeticn 154(3) of the Coda-env: ay itstats Complainant whose complaint iS. nok registered 3s: an FIR: =a Sant by te Office charge” the police “station ita approuch the: Alger palice officer “for th the purpose at getting his case, the complaint rae a an suc! R ; & r 2 ; “higher police 6 ahs ore: riding an. Fin” See and avec the estigaition ie the ok “pageattion ta available 3 applaeching higher “egg Mat oe disclosed In ther ctimpeine if he has doutite about reste veracity of the Complaine, He alse fuinted ont that ‘the - ~ “word “shal used in the Statute does rot sways “mean absence ui any! diseretién in, the matter. For the said Aroposition, he valse highlights cthat this Court hes preferred she rullé of purmosive interpretation te the rule of 2 Pos 24Kern! interoretation! tor-whiel bu fled 62) Chairman eat! Of Mining Examindtion and Chie? tngpector oF’ Mines and Another v5. Ramjee (1977) 2SCC 255, nalit Mohan Pandey ws; Rooran; cainpe, (2004) 6 Sce 536, hy tia Rupees bbe. (1954) a lurther pointed out that it finfdsdipie to” for’ ‘one nN On nonsregis the vices Hack “ees Procedure would then suffer f anil unreasonabieness, Thus: he conehited bis = “ite by, pleading that -Section-1s¢ oF “the Céde pss be inte*preted in the light of Arti¢ie 21. 21) Ms. Vibha Datte Makhija, learned gaily, sal appesting for the State of Madhya Pradestisutimeue. 4 istprovisions ofthe” 3 plains Feading: f Section 154; and Det Coie shows thal vit ina “not be mandatory but fs ahsolutely obligatory on: othe part of te: police officer ten register an-FIR stop ia pi ar canducting en stato i edbanizable.“offetice. osha turther iving the first: in Riftion of an ays suratleni OF fhe Ja port _ ole for the purpose. of ascertaining whether there Was been 9 commission ced,wwitons manifests the kine intent In Hot oid codes,and the naw.code for ’ . cog : tobe —* paint OF th athe power of theo le offenice without the order it opithe first Information regarding commissio “eh cone le offence, whether to Investigate inte a coy of @ Magistrate, to, the *recelved ofslly or in writing, Into writing and into the book separately prescritied: by ‘they Proviveibl government: feir recording such tirst information, 34) AS such, 4 Signiticant change that took piace by way of the 1898 ‘Code swas- with respect to the placement of Section 154, Le, the prevision imposing requirement of recording) the ‘irst-infarmiation ragarding. commission offa cognizatile affinee in the spéelal’ beak pronto ‘Section Mm a"ISS, Le, Eh. orawisian. ehipewering the blicé pificer ta, investigate @CagnizableGlfence. Ae such, the objective oF SUCH placement of provisions’ Wad dear which wasto. arisure that the recofdiggiofithe frstinfprination should be? ~ cP Jah the starting p: itor ang A ion bY theynalice, m the ee St % interest, pr Sifeuiency Of Investigation winded 'g. was. no: salequldre 2 eo Be at conigjienice “an: invastiath recording first informatio Nf obtaining permission from the Maalsthate to : iGit books along, witthe sinatura/seal of the! “extremely valuable =F mals fl ahd mean kex the police. ; a ie tt investigative powers by sf 32). Provisions contained in Chapter sul of the Cade deat aaa Ath with datormatien’ -to the™-pdlice- ad" thelr powers to investi nate. The said Chapter sets aut the procedure to we fulluweu uulingd invesnuation, The gbjective to be “achieved by the pracedure pireseribed In the said Chapter ig to set the criminal-faw in mation-and to provide far all procedural safeguards, so, as tn ensure: that the ten is feiratel Is not mule fide and there is no against the excessive, ~~ N& said proce of.Cope moering ‘wit the evide: ive cellacted during the, Tnvestigatt i 3 Benya pees WSS PRU fae te ‘ai . ais siecifiad in tie said Fe ~ (8) knowingly disob. prohibits hits trom nequirth ‘of-any person for offence or any other mat {by kniowinely di any rena ee whlcihe-shall cane ion of the few which endance at any place Mvestipation initean ite oF Stiy person, ing the tanger in est ation, ar (c) Talis to record, ae y Information Given-te him under sulvsaction: U1} OF Section. 154, of, the Cotte or Caminal Proceciute, 1973) ie Felation, t.icupnlzable sflence Punishabte: whee Saction zs. Soction 9260, Suction 354, Sertion 3548, Suction’ 270, Section 490K, Sertion 276, Section 376A, Section 3768, Sectien 376C, Sect i 3760; Séctlonr 376, Saation 509 shall be pl figerous jmprise Gr at taka thar, six months | Moycextend to mwa shail sis be fable to fine, “. Section 16GA(c) Iay¢ down that iP a public servant (Police Officer} fails-to record any Infomation given to him under Section 1541) SF the Getle ‘In’ relation, te céqnizable = x Page thoffences. punishable under Sectlons 326A, 3268,- 5 3548; 370° 370A, 376) STBA 3760; 3760. 3760: 376E or — ‘Section 509, he shall be unished with rigorous Ronee for & Crys not be less’than six it i Ane 1 ee other eagnicableter eS. are concerned, police” —— huis discretion’ to hele 3 relimindry “inquity if there is. “ = doubt abeul the comedies 34) Although, the argemont is Gs “persuasive as it appears, yet, we ‘dotibe hated such a presumption can be drawn in contravention te the unambiguous words employed in the sald provision, Hence, insertion of Section” 166A Inthe IPE vide criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2073, must be read in consonance with the provision and sot contrary to (t, The: insertion af Section 166A was in the light ofvecent unfartunate Gccurrencte cf offences agixwoimen. The intention of the! lagislaporey in puting forth. this™ “amaridment Wad. to tightan’ the ‘already ‘existing — ‘provisions to provide entranced safeguards to ‘women, : Therefore, the pi oo crimes. ag) awomen a UR Puree vsnask de the'referréd Issue. ‘every system of interpretation tf the tteral \ vr es interpretation, All that we fiavet ta sen at at the very outset is what does the provision say? AS a rasult, the languege emplayed in Section 154 is the determinative factor of the legislative Intent. A plain reading of Section 154{ Ly ofthe Coue provides that any information retating to thece be “stat a shatl ‘be Fedireed init won bs bien oF vniter fis direct in. There Is: ne, ‘gf ae itis apposite to ian Exp follow.” iG or this Court in M/s Hiratal Rs “Rattaniat ‘other rules gf ho gid only when Premanand (supra) and afler feferting te ahovesaid observations In ihe case ot. lal’ Rattanial (supra), this Court observed 3s unter: (Se it iiay be menlloned m this connection. thar the ead ioremose principle of intekpretation, of asiatuie - in every system of inkerpretstion:is the fitstal file of” int retation. [he other roles oF interpretation eg. the ler rule, purposive interpretation, ule. Can-taly be ise lo When the: pion words of a ttatun ambiguous ot deat! to no intellicl ble Fesuits of | jiterally,, would nullify the very “oblect AF the. strute Where the words of a stetute ara absulutely clear and TMbigUuus, (course Cannes be-had tu principles interpretation other, they Mis litera! rule, Vide Siacigh Pues 39“The Ithawage ‘af Section 15402); therefore, admits of — “ne éther construction but the lllersl construction. = 38) The ‘leois Bhs Laka is vividly.” elaber i Bhajan tal (s rpra) whieh is peer ana veritas ic i offe iMliance=Wiehcthe Mandate of Seti 1 IS4(1) of tne Code, the: concemiad poline olficer cannot eiibark non an ingulry os fo whether the information, laid ay the Informart i. refjabl ung genuine ar henwise and, retuseit3 registeta case of the ground thet the informatiun if not rellghle or Credible, On ‘the. other hand. the olficer in charge: of a pollee station Is. - statutorily obliged!’ tp yegister a casa and then to. Proceed with: [he investigation if he Ass reason to suispect the commission af aio ultence: n nie is empaviliod” Under Section 148 wei the: Sede ta: investigats, subject, to the proves te Sectlan: 157. (As wo have: propesad lo make.a Uetolied discussion about the power of & police sflicarin the fold Of Investigation Of a Coginicable offence within) the ambit of Seénene 156 end the Code in 'the ‘emeuthg pot oF this Jutgment, We,c0 nak proponeto deal.witt thipse seears. in exterso ia the present context) tq nace, 3A officer In Charge Gt i police station fefiises to Raeichc the jurisdiction vested in him-and to:-rensater a ease ai the 0Alenaaiahia ‘the Starnberg: aved= by —s0ch “re ti Suniifediine er ten coeental ne iFeatch — Hic Superintendent of Pollos Coabelried: wl f That sthe information frre: ‘cognizable oflance, hirmeelt + poles to ied =i = ena ca on -a-Chse thereon. git th i 4 ti f é En the reasohsbleres: . fabion. In ootherwerds; _ ~~ ofthe sald information is * istration. o} Hota condition, precer at comparizen of thig-r: fate, A eo oe n ‘wiLh thoseof the Roltier Codes wi tice ligislature had purposely Randghe ine sonty the “ware. “Hviomation” without quality) Sale Wordi Section 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of L861 (AGO br” 1861) gassed by the Legislative Council of India rend that ‘every complaint, or information’: -preferred to gn officer In chargdg! lige’ tation should be redueod: intoowriting which srovision was Stibeequently mddifigc by Sectlon 122 qf the! Code of 1872 (Act 10 of IB77) which Uteteatter iad that ‘every coniptalnt preferrec to an. officer (Barge of a pollea ‘stutian shal! fe i tig. Te wt hshal ni whic deruarre in-previous bwo Codes pf 1BG2-and 1872 was del and In that place the ward ‘inforratian? wes useu fry the Codes of 1882 and 2899 which word is haw used i> Sections 254, 155.154 and 190(e} of the present Code of 1973 (Act 2 of 1974), An avarall reading of all the Cees makes It clear thal the conditian which is sine nen for recording a Arsh Information resort is that E.must:be information and that: tsfernation must lose a. cognizable nfence: 33. tis. Shergfers, imaniestly tear wnat Itaie at Sei ae Oficer fas, no ef option excapy te efter the é ~ s slistance thoregf Inthe prescribe: edd For, trait fF tas Say, to fegisiére dase Grit of Suck sefon ei: ‘ information. The: vciiaion ign'L54 oF the Code Is mandatory-and uke ang “officer ds duty bound to s fegister, the: fase on} pene bea, EIT ff ation disclosing a cognizable offence. Thus; the plain words 8F Section 154(1) of lhe Code fave to be given thelr literal meaning. ‘Shar - 2 \ : i in-Sattion 1541) cf the Code clearly shows the. legislative Intent that ie ~~ - 40) ‘The’ use of the Word “sta ihangatery: to registeran FR IF the Information giver te