Supreme Court of India has issued guidelines for Registered of FIR is mandatory
Zero FIR & E-FIR
Direction of the Registered FIR ( first information report) is mandatory.
Lalita Kumari Judgment
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 : This Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) has been developed to provide clear and comprehensive guidelines for police officers and relevant personnel as per the BNSS, 2023.
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Preliminary Enquiry Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
To provide guidelines for conducting preliminary inquiries as per Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. This SOP aims to ensure that all inquiries are carried out efficiently, lawfully, and in a manner that upholds the rights of all parties involved.
This SOP applies to all police officers and relevant personnel involved in the registration and investigation of FIRs as per BNSS, 2023.
Definitions:
- Zero-FIR: An FIR that can be lodged at any police station irrespective of the location of the incident.
- e-FIR: An FIR registered electronically, with the informant's signature to be taken within three days.
- Preliminary Enquiry: An initial investigation to ascertain whether there exists prima facie case for offences punishable for three years or more but less than seven years of imprisonment for proceeding with a full investigation.
Procedure:
Approval for Enquiry:
- Obtain prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP).
- Evaluate the nature and gravity of the offence to determine the necessity of a preliminary enquiry.
Conducting the Enquiry:
- Carry out the preliminary enquiry within fourteen (14) days to ascertain if there is a prima facie case.
- Document all findings and evidence gathered during the enquiry.
Decision Post Enquiry:
- If a prima facie case exists, proceed with the full investigation immediately.
- If no prima facie case is found, document the findings and close the enquiry with a report to the approval authority.
- Communicate the findings of the enquiry to the complainant.
Reporting and Documentation.
Maintain Records:
- Ensure all steps taken during the preliminary enquiry are thoroughly documented.
- Keep records of all permissions, findings, and decisions related to the enquiry.
Regular Reporting:
- Submit regular reports to supervisory officers on the status of preliminary enquiries.
- Update the relevant records and databases with information from the enquiry
Responsibilities.
Officer in Charge of Police Station:
- Maintain a register of preliminary enquiries in the format prescribed by the Director General of Police.
- Record the gist of the information in the general diary and the details in the preliminary enquiry register, pro-forma of which will be prescribed by the Director General of Police.
- Obtain permission in writing from the jurisdictional Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct a preliminary enquiry, recording the reasons why a preliminary enquiry needs to be conducted.
- If the preliminary enquiry is not completed within fourteen days, immediately proceed with FIR registration.
- Ensure compliance with this SOP during the registration and enquiry process.
- Provide necessary support and resources for the effective implementation of this SOP.
Deputy Superintendent of Police:
- Maintain a register of preliminary inquiries in the format prescribed by the Director General of Police.
- Grant permissions in writing within 24 hours of receiving the request from the Officer in Charge. If permission is denied or not granted or decision is not duly communicated by the approving authority within the timeframe, the Officer In Charge will proceed with the registration of the FIR.
- If the preliminary enquiry is not completed within fourteen days, show-cause the enquiry officer. If the reply is not satisfactory, initiate departmental action.
Superintendent of Police:
Review preliminary enquiries conducted in his jurisdiction during the monthly crime review meeting and take corrective measures, if any.
Landmark judgement .
Lalita Kumari vs. State | of U.P.
The provisions for preliminary enquiries under the BNSS, 2023, represent an evolution from the guidelines set forth in the Lalita Kumari judgment. While the Lalita Kumari judgment mandated that FIRs must be registered, if the information discloses a cognizable offence and allowed preliminary enquiries only to determine if a cognizable offence is revealed, the BNSS, 2023, expands this scope. Under BNSS, preliminary enquiries are conducted to ascertain if there is a prima facie case for offences punishable with three years or more but less than seven years of imprisonment. Unlike the Lalita Kumari
guidelines, which specify categories like matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, and medical negligence, BNSS applies broadly to all relevant offences within the defined punishment range. BNSS also introduces a specific fourteen-day period for completing enquiries. Furthermore, BNSS requires prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, ensuring greater oversight and accountability, which was not stipulated by the Lalita Kumari judgment.
The Apex Court in Lalita Kumari Judgment also directed that “in cases where preliminary enquiry ends in closing 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”.
Similarly, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, cannot be legally covered by this provision; therefore, the FIR should be registered without any preliminary enquiry, whatsoever.
Read more click next page
A case was registered against the PSI of Sarthana Police Station for refusing to register a complaint.
The Sarthana PIS of Surat deliberately disregarded the direction of the principle established by the Supreme Court by not registering an FIR despite a complaint of a cognizable offence.
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court has registered a case against the Sarthana PI under IPC 166 (A) and directed the DCP to submit an investigation report within 60 days.
According to the established principle of the Supreme Court directions given in the Supreme Court's judgment in Lalita Kumari vs. State | of U.P.
The complainant Jaideep Chhagan Nathani had filed a written complaint with the Sarthana Police on 28-9-20 regarding the crime of criminal cheating, breach of trust.
Despite the complaint being a cognizable offence Sarthana PI G.A. Patel did not file the complaint even though it was mandatory to file a complaint as per CrPC-154. Moreover, the complainant had filed the complaint in the office on 16-12-20 as a civil matter.
Therefore, the Sarthana PI did not follow the directions given in the Supreme Court's judgment in Lalita Kumari vs. State | of U.P. and the complainant had demanded action under IPC-166 (A) before the court. Accordingly, the court sought an explanation from Sarthana PI Patel, who said that while investigating the complaint, it was a financial transaction and a civil case was registered.
It was asked to get. Moreover, it was not stated that the complaint was not cognizable. The fact that the preliminary inquiry was conducted within seven days regarding the complaint of the complainant and the matter was recorded in the case diary was also not stated in the reply.
It is noteworthy here that if the complaint does not constitute a cognizable offence, then in that case, only sufficient inquiry has to be conducted to determine whether it constitutes a cognizable offence or not and the same has to be recorded in the station diary.
Therefore, the court has decided that the PI is a cognizable offence.
Despite the complaint, it was directed that the complaint was not registered under CrPC-154. Moreover, instead of taking action as per the established principle of the Supreme Court, it has been said that the crime of IPC-166 (A) was committed by deliberately ignoring the order of the law.
The court has ordered a complaint to be registered against the Sarthana PI under IPC-166 (A) and CrPC 154 (1) and an investigation by an officer of the rank of DCP and a report to be submitted to the court within 60 days.
Punishment:
Action under IPC-166 (A) for contempt of court by a public servant: Provision of imprisonment for a minimum of 6 months.
When a public servant knowingly disregards the order of law in connection with any offence or for investigation or knowingly disregards the order of law with intent to cause harm to any person and fails to record information obtained in an offence punishable under police authority, then action can be taken under IPC-166 (A) and CrPC 154. In such circumstances, the imprisonment shall not be less than six months but may extend to 2 years.
Welcome to the lexedge, please don't spam in comments.