Magistrates Acting Like Post Office While Directing Registration Of FIR: Allahabad High Court Issues Guidelines

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the Magistrates are acting like a “post office” while directing registration of FIRs against the mandate of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P.Noting that various petitions were being filed in the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of FIRs registered under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 471 IPC against people when the actual dispute was civil in nature, the bench comprising Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra issued following directions to Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh regarding registration of FIRs:“(i) Where an F.I.R. is sought to be registered under Sections 406, 408, 420 / 467, 471 I.P.C. etc., wherein, on the face of it, it appears that there is a commercial dispute or a civil dispute or a dispute arising out of different types of agreements or partnership deeds, etc. before registration of the F.I.R., an opinion will be taken in all such cases from the concerned District Government Counsel / Deputy District Government Counsel in their respective Districts and only after obtaining a report, the F.I.R. will be registered. Such opinion will be reproduced in concluding part of F.I.R.(ii) The D.G.P., U.P. will issue necessary instructions to all the S.S.P. in the State of Uttar Pradesh who will further instruct all Station House Officers of their respective police stations to ensure that prior to registration of the F.I.R. where a civil / commercial dispute is apparent, the opinion of the District / Deputy Government Counsel should be taken at the pre-cognizance stage.(iii) Director Prosecution U.P. will also insure necessary directions to all Government counsels concerned.(iv) It is made clear that in all cases where first information reports, which are to be registered after 01.05.2024, if no such legal opinion is taken by the concerned police official before registration of the F.I.R., as per (i) and (ii) above they may be liable to contempt proceedings.(v) This direction will not apply where F.I.R's. are registered on direction of competent Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as these directions relates to pre- cognizance stage.”Factual BackgroundPetitioner's case is that he and his brother were successors of decease Gokul as they were his adopted sons and their names were mutated in the revenue records. Even though petitioner had been possession of his share of the property, informant Devi Gulam son of Gokul challenged the order regarding mutation of names of the petitioner on grounds that petitioner was not the son of Gokul. The application was dismissed by the concerned Tehsildar. Counsel for petitioners asserted that Sone Lal was adopted by Gokul and it is only after death of Gokul that informant began dishonest litigation. It was argued that the appeal against the order of Tehsildar is pending before the SDM, however, informant went ahead and filed complaint against the petitioners under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Subsequently, FIRs were directed to be filed by the Magistrate. Counsel for petitioners submitted that though no prima facie case was made out and the informant had stated in his complaint that he is pursuing remedies available to him, the Magistrate directed registration of FIR against the petitioners. It was argued that there was a delay of 22 years in registering the FIR. Further, it was submitted that the other Sone Lal's were named in the FIR even though they are neither beneficiary nor they are party to the civil dispute. Counsel for informant stated that since adoption of Sone Lal was challenged, informant had contested before the revenue authorities. High Court VerdictThe Court observed that the Magistrate had not looked into the merits of the application to form an informed opinion before directing registration of FIR. It was stated in the complaint that the accused were forcibly trying to take possession of the property and the informant with the help of police personnel was not allowing them to do so. The Court held that the informant had the remedy of filing a suit for permanent injunction for peaceful possession of this property. The ingredients to register FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC were not made out in the case till a specific finding to that effect is recorded. The Court relied on Wyeth Limited & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Another and Usha Chakraborty & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr where the Supreme Court held that if a civil dispute is being portrayed as criminal in nature, criminal proceedings ought to be quashed. The Court further relied on Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P. where the Apex Court laid down guidelines on registration of FIRs in cognizable offences. The Court held that Supreme Court had time and again held that where commercial relationship of the parties is visible from the FIR, no offence will be made out. “This court is also experiencing that the trial courts while exercising power under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. are...

Magistrates Acting Like Post Office While Directing Registration Of FIR: Allahabad High Court Issues Guidelines

Upasna Agrawal

Tags