Mandatory For Police To Prosecute Informants Of False FIRs; IOs To Face Contempt For Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court

In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court has issued a strict mandamus to the police machinery in the state to mandatorily initiate prosecution against individuals/informants who lodge false or malicious First Information Reports (FIRs).A bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held that if an investigation reveals that an FIR was based on false information, the IO is “statutorily obligated” to file a formal complaint against the informant under Section 215(1)(a) BNSS (corresponding to Section 195(1)(a) CrPC). The Court also warned that failure to do so would render the police officers liable for prosecution under Section 199(b) BNS (public servant disobeying direction of law) and departmental action. In this regard, specific directions have been issued to the Director General of Police, Commissioner of Police, Senior Superintendent of Police, Superintendent of Police, as well as all the Investigating Officers, Station House Officers and Forwarding Officers, i.e. Circle Officers, Additional SP, SP and Public Prosecutors.Case in brief The bench passed this order on an application filed u/s 528 BNSS by one Umme Farva. It was her case that her husband/Informant (Opposite Party No. 2) had lodged an FIR in 2023, where he alleged that after their divorce, the applicant and her partner were threatening him on Facebook. The police registered the case against the wife-applicant under Sections 504 and 507 of the IPC. However, upon investigation, the police found the allegations to be baseless and filed a Final Report (Closure Report) on June 19, 2024, and exonerated the wife. The husband then filed a Protest Petition. On October 23, 2024, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Aligarh allowed the protest petition and rejected the closure report. The judicial officer also took cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC and summoned the wife-applicant to face trial in the “State Case”. The applicant-wife then moved the present petition challenging the order of the Magistrate as her counsel argued that no offence was made out against her and the Judicial Officer concerned failed to appreciate the evidence collected during the course of investigation in its right perspective. On the other hand, the counsels for the Informant-husband (opposite party no.2) argued that there was no illegality or infirmity in the cognizance-cum-summoning order as a prima facie case was made out against the applicant. High Court's observations At the outset, Justice Giri pointed out a fundamental procedural error made by the Magistrate. He noted that the Judicial Magistrate erroneously passed cognizance-cumsummoning order under Section 506 and 507 IPC for a non-cognizable offence in derogation of the provisions of CrPC. The Court noted that the Judicial Magistrate had neither converted the police report disclosing 'non cognizable offence' into 'complaint' as per the provision of Explanation to Section 2(d) of CrPC, nor took cognisance under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC to proceed as a 'trial of summons-case' instituted on complaint.“In the present matter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh has not followed the provisions of law and treated a non-cognizable offence as a cognizable offence,” the bench said. The HC also found faults with the Magistrate's move of taking cognisance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC and summoning the applicant-wife without affording her an opportunity of hearing provided under First Proviso of Section 223 BNSS, and also erroneously proceeded as a trial of a summons case instituted on a police report rather than a complaint.On the other hand, the Court also noted that even the SHO had misused the process of law in the beginning by registering an FIR treating the case as cognizable offence, rather than treating it as non-cognizable report under Section 155 CrPC. Thus, the bench prima facie opined that in the present case, there was an abuse of the process of the court as well as the code by which fundamental right provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India had been violated. The bench also pointed out that the IO, while filing the final report (closure report) vis-a-vis the wife/accused-applicant failed to file a written complaint against the informant-husband for offences committed under Section 177 (Knowingly furnishing false information to a public servant) and 182 IPC (False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person). The Court specifically held that Sections 177 and 182 of the IPC (corresponding to Sections 212 and 217 of the BNS) cannot be made 'redundant'. It remarked thus: “If the police machinery has been misused by furnishing false, frivolous, or misleading information, a written complaint as per Section 215(1) BNSS... must be filed... Failure to do so will render the purpose of Section 212 and Section 217 BNS redundant.” The Court also added that a Judicial Magistrate shall not accept the Final Report if the same...

Mandatory For Police To Prosecute Informants Of False FIRs; IOs To Face Contempt For Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

Mandatory For Police To Prosecute Informants Of False FIRs; IOs To Face Contempt For Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers