A vertical division between the states on making the registration of FIR mandatory was one of the major reasons for a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court to refer the issue to a Constitution bench for defining the mandate of Section 154 of the CrPC under which FIR is registered by the SHO in-charge of a police station.
While the Centre wanted to strictly go by the definition of Section 154 CrPC, the states were divided in two groups — one led by Uttar Pradesh supporting the Centre’s stand and other by Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, taking entirely a “divergent” view that before the registration of FIR a “preliminary” inquiry is a must by the police.
Additional solicitor-general Harin Raval, who placed before a bench of Justices Dalveer Bhandari, T.S. Thakur and Dipak Mishra, Centre’s opinion, stated that under Section 154 in all “cognizable offences” registration of the FIR becomes necessary on the receipt of a complaint and in “non-cognizable” offences it is on the discretion of SHO in-charge of a police station.
Centre’s stand was adopted by some states with Uttar Pradesh’s counsel Ratnakar Das advancing the main arguments stating that “Section 154 mandates the police to enter the information about a cognizable offence in a book commonly known as first information report. At that stage, the police cannot go into the question about the truth of the information and make a roving inquiry.”
But Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Punjab, which led the other group of states, had taken entirely opposite view with senior advocate Shekhar Naphade for Maharasthra advancing the main argument. He said “non-registration of FIR (immediately after the receipt of the complaint) does not result in crime going unnoticed or unpunished.”
This group of states was of the view that “FIR is only for the purpose of making the information about a cognizable offence available to the police and judicial authorities at the earliest possible opportunity. Delay in lodging the FIR does not necessarily result in acquittal of the accused as it can always be explained to the court by the prosecution.”
The Centre’s view was further elaborated by Mr Raval stating that in serious crimes if the police officer was given the power to hold a “preliminary” inquiry before registration of the FIR, it might benefit the accused and
the evidence would be “obliterated or destroyed and justice denied” to the victims.