1977
Search results
Nov 12, 2013 · Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12 November, 2013. Warning on translation. Get this document in PDF. Print it on a file/printer. Download Court Copy. Select the following parts of the judgment. Facts. Issues. Petitioner's Arguments.
- Introduction
- Details of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P
- Facts of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P
- Issues
- Laws Involved in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P
- Arguments/ Contentions of The Parties
- Judgement in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P
- Ratio Decidendi
- Exceptions
- Analysis of The Judgement in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P
On 13th November 2013, a five Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed a landmark judgement which is cited even today amid the Rafale case. The Apex Court in this judgement ruled that a police officer must mandatorily register an FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as CrPC)if the in...
The following are some of the important details of the case discussed in this article- 1. Case Name – Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh and others. 2. Case No. – W.P 68/2008 3. Equivalent Citations – AIR 2014 SC 187, (2014) 2 SCC 1 4. Court – Supreme Court of India 5. Bench – Justices P Sathasivam (C.J), B.S. Chauhan, Ranjana Prakash Desai, R...
In the instant case, Ms. Lalita Kumari, a minor, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, with the Supreme Court of India, through her father, Bhola Kamat. In the current...The petition stated that the police did not take any action when the petitioner approached the concerned police station by submitting a written complaint on 11thMay 2008. It further stated that the...Following the admission of the instant petition, a two-judge Supreme Court bench issued notices to the relevant authorities directing them to approach the concerned magistrates for the issuance of...In furtherance of the above directions in the case, upon hearing arguments from both sides, the two-judge bench of the Apex Court referred the case to a larger bench due to the inconsistent rulings...Whether the victim’s or complainant’s entitlement to a speedy investigation of their complaint following allegations, can be compromised by the police’s potential for manipulation as a result of th...Whether the police officer should mandatorily register an FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to a Cognizable offence or the police officer, to check the authenti...Whether obligatory registration of FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 without preliminary inquiry violate the right to life of the accused under Article 21 of the Constit...Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
1. Section 154 – Provides for the procedure to be followed or steps to be taken by a police officer on receipt of any information disclosing the commission of any cognizable offence. Section 154(1) provides for registration of FIR and the remaining portion of the Section lays down the procedure in which the registration must take place. Section 154(3) provides a remedy if any police officer refuses to register an FIR under sub-section (1). Such a person under this subsection can forward such...
Constitution of India, 1950
A few of the important Constitutional provisions that were dealt with in this case include the following – 1. Article 21 – Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty as a fundamental right to every individual. It states that an individual can be deprived of his/her personal liberty only according to the procedural established by the law and not otherwise 1.1. Article 21 of the Constitution was under discussion since it was contended that the mandatory registration of FIRs under Section...
Indian Penal Code, 1860
1. Section 166-A – It provides for the punishment for disobedience of direction under the law by a public servant. It prescribes a punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a term extending from 6 months to 2 years. Clause (c) of this provision considers the failure to record information disclosing the commission of sexual offences under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860under Section 154(1) of CrPC as disobedience of direction under law.
Petitioner
1. Petitioner’s counsel argued that Section 154(1) of CrPC requires the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) and does not allow for optional filing because the word “shall”, in the text of the provision, indicates the legislators’ intention. Therefore, he contended that police officers have no discretion other than to file a formal complaint (FIR) after receiving information disclosing the commission of any offence. 2. The Counsel for Petitioner relied upon B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal...
Respondents
There were various arguments put forth by counsels for different respondents, most of them directed more or less towards a similar opinion. The contentions made by the respondents are as follows.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of CrPC and no preliminary inquiry is permissible if the information received discloses the commission of any cognizable offence. The court ruled that no police officer can abstain from the duty of registering an FIR if the commission of any cognizable offenc...
The Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding upon the mandate of registration of FIR, looked into the previous procedural codes or legislations and noted that the intent of the legislature has been clear even in the previous codes, that the registration of FIR has to be a compulsory procedure if the commission of any cognizable offence is disclosed in ...
Although the Court ruled that the registration of FIR under Section 154(1) is a mandatory procedure that has to be followed by the police officer upon the receipt of any information disclosing the commission of any cognizable offences, it also noted that there are certain instances where a preliminary enquiry might be necessary. Some of the excepti...
The Hon’ble Apex Court through this judgment signified two main aspects of the mandatory registration of FIR. The first is the maintenance of records and the official assurance that the criminal procedure is initiated. The second aspect is that the Court stressed upon the significance of mandatory registration of FIR in preventing any kind of embel...
Apr 16, 2020 · Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. & Ors. The petitioner, a minor girl was kidnapped by local goons. Her father, Bhola Kamat went to police station to lodge an FIR which police refused. The father further went to the superintendent of police and under his direction a FIR was registered.
Aug 15, 2023 · The case of Lalita Kumari vs. State of UP is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that deals with the issue of police inaction in the face of cognizable offences, thereby addressing the importance of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
May 8, 2024 · Facts. This petition was filed before the Supreme Court by Lalita kumari who is minor through her father under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) for the issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus for the protection of his minor daughter who has been kidnapped.
Lalita Kumari's father, Bhola Kamat, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution seeking a writ of habeas corpus to produce Lalita Kumari, his minor daughter. The police did not take any action to trace Lalita Kumari even after registering an FIR against the private respondents.
People also ask
What happened to Lalita Kumari?
Who is Lalita Kumari?
What is Lalita Kumari vs State of up & ORs?
What is Lalita Kumari V state of up?
Mar 5, 2014 · Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.. on 5 March, 2014. Warning on translation. Get this document in PDF. Print it on a file/printer. Download Court Copy. Select the following parts of the judgment. For entire document.
