issuing FIR even when there is no information as to cognizable offence

[jithendhar chiranji]

Sir/madam

What s.154 Cr.P.C. states is -

"Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf."

But police are registering lot of FIRs under various heads even though the information does not reveal any cognizable offence as such.

For example:
1. suspicious death - u/s 174 Cr.P.C.
2. man/boy/girl/woman missing
3. 41 r/w 102 Cr.P.C.

According to Cr.P.C., issuance of FIR under these heads is not provided. Who had given authority to police to issue such FIRs, which will create additional work for Courts, not provided under Cr.P.C.

where the procedure is provided otherwise, Whether Courts are blindly and bluntly bound to accept such unprocedural FIRs. What is the cognizable offence occurred in these cases at the time of issuing FIR?

[Rajender]

They are not supposed to register 

FIR in such situation . But police standing orders directing them to register.SO have no statutory effect like Cr.rules of practice .those FIR s help the superior police officers to monitor the progress of the case.

MRJ APJA 

Sent from my iPhone

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AP judicial officers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to apjudicial-offi...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to apjudicia...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[korrapolu vasudevarao]

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bachpan Bachao Andolan Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in 

MANU/SC/0560/2013 directed that whenever a report is presented to the police about missing of a child, police are bound to register FIR. In the said case even though State raised objection that it is not a cognizable offence, the same is not accepted and the above direction is given.

[Bezawada Radha Rani]

Good evening sirs

 I have a doubt

According to Sec. 195 (1) (b) (ii) of Cr. p.c If any offence described in Sec. 463 or punishable U/Sec. 471,475 or u/sec.467 of I.P.C which are committed in respect of document produced or given in evidence, in a proceeding in any court  ,then complaint has to send to other subordinate court

 If such complaint is forwarded straight away to police station by session court without sending to it's subordinate court then is it permissible  to subordinate court to refuse to take cognizance, if numbered what is the fate of case and what is left to prosecution agency 

[kiran kumar.d]

Namaste friends,
Madam for your doubt section 340 cr.p.c provides procedure in cases mentioned under section 195 cr.p.c. court cannot straight away refer case to police for investigation and registering FIR, first it should made preliminary enquiry into the offence reffered into sec.195(1)(b) cr.p.c. investigation by police prohibitted. In your case sessions court appears not conducted such mandated enquiry directly reffered to police which against to law.
However on police report your court took cognizance, as per sec.461 cr.p.c the irregularity vitiates proceedings. As magistrate not empowered by law to take cognizance without compliance of procedure under section 340 cr.p.c. he cannot try offender.
Plese go through judgment. AIR 1998 SC 768.

[Bezawada Radha Rani]

Thank u Sir

[Bezawada Radha Rani]

Namesthe 

In Writ. P.Civil .No 19 of 2012 date 1-4-2014 In between BHARATKUMAR SHANTILAL THAKKAR vs STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTH...

 is it not possible to  seek such relief to judicial officers who has completed M.L after getting job 

[korrapolu vasudevarao]

Dear friends on 2.7.2014 hon'ble supreme court gave a direction in Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar which are binding on all of us.

"Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure  that  police  officers  do  not

arrest accused unnecessarily  and  Magistrate  do  not  authorise  detention

casually and mechanically.  In order to ensure what we have observed  above,

we give the following direction:

All  the  State  Governments  to  instruct  its  police  officers   not   to

automatically arrest  when  a  case  under  Section  498-A  of  the  IPC  is

registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity  for  arrest  under

the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC;

All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified  sub-

clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and  furnish  the

reasons   and   materials   which    necessitated    the    arrest,    while

forwarding/producing  the  accused  before  the   Magistrate   for   further

detention;

The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall  peruse  the

report furnished by the police officer in terms  aforesaid  and  only  after

recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;

The decision not to arrest  an  accused,  be  forwarded  to  the  Magistrate

within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case  with  a  copy

to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of  police  of

the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A  of  Cr.PC  be  served  on  the

accused within two weeks from the date of institution  of  the  case,  which

may be extended by the Superintendent of Police  of  the  District  for  the

reasons to be recorded in writing;

Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart  from  rendering

the police officers concerned liable for  departmental  action,  they  shall

also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted  before

High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

Authorising  detention  without  recording  reasons  as  aforesaid  by   the

judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable  for  departmental  action  by

the appropriate High Court.

We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply  to  the

cases under  Section  498-A  of  the  I.P.C.  or  Section  4  of  the  Dowry

Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also  such  cases  where  offence  is

punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than  seven  years

or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine."

      We direct that a copy of this  judgment  be  forwarded  to  the  Chief

Secretaries as also the  Director  Generals  of  Police  of  all  the  State

Governments and the Union Territories and the Registrar General of  all  the

High Courts for onward transmission and ensuring its compliance.

[kiran kumar]

Thank u very much vasu gary

On Jul 13, 2014 12:10 PM, "korrapolu vasudevarao" <kvasud...@gmail.com> wrote:

This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (kvasud...@gmail.com) Add cleanup rule | More info

[Sitha Rama Avadhani Vedantam]

Dear friends, Please find the attachment for general use and make suggestions for improving the topic and content.

VSR. Avadhani