While ordering compulsory registration of the First Information Report on receipt of complaints of cognisable offences, the Supreme Court has made exceptions for preliminary enquiries to find out the truth of the facts alleged.
Such a preliminary probe is essential to find out the truth in the context of a serious allegation, made in a complaint by a former dean of a law college, against a retired Supreme Court judge of sexual harassment of a woman law intern.
A five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India P. Sathasivam, said in its recent judgment: “If the police officer has a doubt about the veracity of the accusation, he has to conduct a preliminary inquiry. If the information received does not disclose a cognisable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether a cognisable offence is disclosed or not.”
The court said: “If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognisable offence, the FIR must be registered. In the cases wherein the preliminary inquiry ends in closure of the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.”
Giving illustrations, the court said the category of cases in which a preliminary inquiry might be made included matrimonial/family disputes; commercial offences; medical negligence and corruption cases; and cases wherein there was an abnormal delay in criminal prosecution, for example, a delay of more than three months in reporting the matter without the reasons for delay being explained satisfactorily.
The court said: “Besides, the Cr. PC gives power to the police to close a matter before and after investigation. A police officer can foreclose an FIR before an investigation under Section 157 of the Code, if it appears to him that there is no sufficient ground to investigate it.”
The court, while ordering a preliminary enquiry in certain cases, took into consideration the arguments that every citizen “has a right not to be subjected to malicious prosecution and every police officer has an in-built duty under Section 154 of the Cr.PC to ensure that an innocent person is not falsely implicated in a criminal case. If despite the fact that the police officer is not prima facie satisfied as regards commission of a cognisable offence and proceeds to register an FIR and carries out an investigation, it will result in putting the liberty of a citizen in jeopardy.”
