2006 (10) TMI 512 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the failure of the police to register a case under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as disclosed in the complaint, the mandatory nature of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) for police to register a case based on information of a cognizable offence, and the correction of errors by the High Court in directing the Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law.

Failure to Register Case under Relevant IPC Sections:
The complaint filed before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate disclosed offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 452, 323, and 395 IPC. However, the SHO of the concerned Police Station registered the case only under Sections 452/380/323/34 IPC, excluding Section 395 IPC. This omission led to no investigation being carried out for the offence under Section 395 IPC, resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice. The Trial Magistrate and the District and Sessions Judge failed to notice this error, which was corrected by the High Court. The High Court's order was deemed justified as it rectified the oversight by the lower courts.

Mandatory Nature of Section 154 of Cr.P.C:
Section 154 of the Cr.P.C imposes a statutory duty on police officers to register a case based on information disclosing a cognizable offence without assessing the credibility of the information. The police officer must register the case upon receiving such information and proceed with the investigation. The genuineness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for registering a case under Section 154. The police officer cannot refuse to register a case based on the reliability of the information; that assessment comes after the case is registered. The failure of the concerned SHO to register the case under Section 395 IPC as disclosed in the complaint violated the mandatory provision of Section 154, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

Correction of Errors by High Court:
The High Court directed the concerned Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law as per Section 209 of the Cr.P.C, correcting the errors made by the Trial Magistrate and the District and Sessions Judge. The High Court's order was upheld as it rectified the failure to register a case under Section 395 IPC and ensured that the accused faced trial for all disclosed offences. The delay in the criminal trial faced by the appellants was not a sufficient ground to overlook the miscarriage of justice caused by the police officer's failure to register the case correctly. The High Court's decision was deemed appropriate, and the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.