AURANGZEB KHAN vs DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER and 4 others
This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, which reviewed and set aside its own previous order directing the registration of an F.I.R. The core legal question was whether a Sessions Court, having directed an S.H.O. to register an F.I.R. under Sections 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, could subsequently review that order and direct the complainant to file a direct complaint instead. The High Court held that the Sessions Court's subsequent order was a patent illegality and set it aside. The Court emphasized that once a judicial order is passed directing the registration of an F.I.R., the police officer is legally bound to comply with that order by recording the statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and proceeding with the investigation. The principle laid down is that a Sessions Court lacks the authority to review its own previous order passed under Sections 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and police officers must strictly adhere to judicial directions regarding the registration of criminal cases.
- Can a Sessions Court review its own previous order directing the registration of an F.I.R. under Sections 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a police officer legally bound to register an F.I.R. once a Sessions Court has issued a direction to that effect under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the appropriate course of action for a police officer after a court orders the registration of an F.I.R.?
- Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J. Learned State Counsel has placed on record statement in writing filed by the S.H.O. Police Station Makki Shah mentioning therein that he has taken over charge of the said Police Station on 26-1-2005, but thereafter the petitioner has not approached him for lodging of any F.I.R.
2. ' I have heard Mr. Aijaz Shaikh, Advocate for the applicant and the learned State counsel.
3. Perusal of case record reveals that on the application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Filed by the applicant, being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,503 of 2004 the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, has passed a A detailed order dated 11-12-2004, directing the S.H.O.
4. Police Station Makki Shah for lodging of F.I.R. Of the applicant against the proposed accused. It seems that the then S.H.O. Daringly violated such order, and instead of recording the complaint/F.I.R of the applicant, he recorded his statement as well as statements of various other persons and thereafter, submitted his report before the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Such conduct of the then S.H.O., smacks foul play and mala fide on his part as after passing of order, dated 11-12-2004 the only course available to him was to record the statement of the complainant/applicant under Section 154 Cr.P.C. And proceed further with the investigation of the crime in accordance with law.
5. ' It is strange that despite categorical' assertion of the applicant that the said S.H.O. Was favouring the opposite party, the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Hyderabad, instead of enforcing his earlier order, dated 11-12-2004, accepted/ entertained the application of S.H.O. Of Police Station Makki Shah dated 22-12-2004 and passed the impugned order dated 1-2-2005 reviewing his earlier order and directing the applicant for filing of direct complaint. Passing of such order by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Hyderabad, seems to be patent illegality which is liable to be corrected in exercise of revisional powers of this Court. Accordingly, this criminal revision application is allowed and disposed of in the terms that the applicant shall appear before the S.H.O. Police Station Makki Shah for recording of his statement, whereafter further action shall follow strictly in accordance with law.
6. ' Before parting with this order it may be observed that the conduct of the then S.H.O. Police Station Makki Shah, seems to be throughout tainted with mala fide. A copy of this order, therefore, be sent to District Police Officer, Hyderabad, for necessary disciplinary action against the said S.H.O. And submission of compliance report for the perusal of this Court within two months.