Table of Contents
Case Title
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 943 of 2021 | Supreme Court of India
Introduction
The Supreme Court has clarified the remedies available when police refuse to register an FIR, especially in cases involving cognizable offences. It examined whether the existing legal framework provides effective solutions in such situations.
The Court analysed the statutory scheme under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It held that the law already provides adequate remedies for non-registration of FIR and that the real issue lies in implementation rather than absence of legal provisions.
Also Read:
Buyer Not Liable for Forged Will Property Transaction – Supreme Court Judgment Explained https://legalpaathcoaching.com/buyer-liability-forged-will-property/
Factual Background
The petition raised concerns about police inaction in cases involving cognizable offences. The petitioners argued that refusal to register FIRs weakens the rule of law and requires judicial intervention.
The Court examined the statutory provisions governing registration of offences, investigation, and judicial supervision. It analysed the duties of police officers and remedies available to an aggrieved informant.
The Court also considered earlier judgments on mandatory FIR registration and the role of Magistrates in supervising investigation.
Further, it examined the scope of constitutional remedies when statutory mechanisms fail.
Supreme Court Held
- The statutory framework under CrPC and BNSS provides a complete mechanism for registration and investigation of offences. It also provides remedies for non-registration of FIR.
- Section 154 CrPC (Section 173 BNSS) imposes a mandatory duty on police to register an FIR when a cognizable offence is disclosed. Police have no discretion in such cases.
- Registration of FIR is the first step in criminal law. Police cannot refuse registration based on doubt about the truth of allegations.
- The law clearly distinguishes between cognizable and non-cognizable offences. Even in non-cognizable cases, police must record information, though investigation requires Magistrate approval.
- If police fail to register an FIR, the informant can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC.
- If the grievance continues, the informant can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC. The Magistrate can order registration of FIR and ensure proper investigation.
- The Magistrate has wide supervisory powers to ensure fairness and legality in investigation.
- Courts should discourage direct filing of writ petitions before High Courts when statutory remedies are available.
- Constitutional remedies under Articles 32 and 226 remain available but should be used only after exhausting statutory remedies.
- The Court held that the law does not suffer from any deficiency. The issue lies in poor implementation of existing provisions.
- Courts must ensure proper enforcement of the existing framework instead of creating new mechanisms.
Case Laws Discussed
Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1
The Court held that police must register an FIR upon disclosure of a cognizable offence. No preliminary inquiry is required.
Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar (1997) 8 SCC 476
The Court held that the Magistrate can direct registration of an FIR under Section 156(3).
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409
The Court held that the Magistrate has wide powers to ensure proper investigation. It also cautioned against premature use of writ jurisdiction.
Also Read:
Death Penalty: Mitigating and Aggravating Factors – Supreme Court Judgment Explained https://legalpaathcoaching.com/death-penalty-mitigating-aggravating-factors/
[…] Also Read:Non-Registration of FIR: Remedies Available as per Supreme Court https://legalpaathcoaching.com/non-registration-of-fir-remedies-supreme-court/ […]