Jurisdictional Issues In Fir Registration
πΉ What is FIR?
An FIR (First Information Report) is the initial report of a cognizable offence lodged with the police. It sets the criminal justice process in motion.
πΉ Jurisdiction in FIR Registration
Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a police station or court to entertain and act upon a complaint or FIR. The key aspects:
Territorial Jurisdiction β Police station must be in the locality where the offence occurred.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction β The police must have the authority to investigate that type of offence.
Pecuniary and Personal Jurisdiction β Less relevant in FIR registration, more for courts.
Issue: Often FIRs are registered in improper jurisdictions, causing legal disputes and procedural delays.
πΉ Legal Provisions
Section 154, CrPC β Police must register an FIR if the information discloses a cognizable offence.
Section 177, CrPC β If the FIR is lodged in the wrong jurisdiction, the police must send the information to the proper police station.
Section 19, CrPC β Courts have jurisdiction based on territorial principles.
πΉ Common Jurisdictional Issues in FIR Registration
FIR lodged at a police station not having territorial jurisdiction over the offence.
FIR registered where the complainant resides, not where offence occurred.
Dispute whether the offence occurred in one jurisdiction or another (especially in border areas).
Refusal by police to register FIR citing lack of jurisdiction.
Multiplicity of FIRs on the same offence in different jurisdictions.
π Key Case Laws on Jurisdictional Issues in FIR Registration
1. βοΈ Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP (2013) β Supreme Court
Facts:
Delay and refusal by police to register FIR despite complaint about cognizable offence.
Held:
SC held that registration of FIR is mandatory once information discloses commission of cognizable offence.
Police cannot refuse FIR on jurisdictional grounds but must transfer the FIR to proper jurisdiction.
Police must register FIR immediately and proceed accordingly.
Importance:
Police have no discretion to refuse FIR based on jurisdictional technicalities.
Reinforced Section 154 CrPC and police duty.
2. βοΈ State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) β Supreme Court
Facts:
Question of whether police or magistrate had jurisdiction to investigate offences.
Held:
SC clarified that FIR must be registered at the police station within whose jurisdiction the offence occurred.
Police cannot register FIR in areas outside their territorial jurisdiction.
If FIR is lodged wrongly, police must send the complaint to the proper police station.
Importance:
Established the principle of territorial jurisdiction in FIR registration.
Police must act only within territorial limits.
3. βοΈ State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde (1999) β Supreme Court
Facts:
FIR registered in one police station but accused arrested elsewhere.
Held:
SC held that FIR registration is a preliminary step and police have duty to investigate irrespective of arrest location.
However, FIR registration must follow territorial jurisdiction.
Where FIR is registered outside proper jurisdiction, police should transfer it promptly.
Importance:
Clarified FIR registration vs. investigation jurisdiction.
Ensured no impunity due to jurisdictional lapses.
4. βοΈ Siddhartha Vashisht v. Union of India (2018) β Supreme Court
Facts:
Whether police can refuse to register FIR on jurisdictional grounds.
Held:
Police cannot refuse FIR registration on territorial jurisdictional grounds.
Once complaint discloses cognizable offence, FIR must be registered and if outside territorial limits, transferred to correct police station.
Delays and refusal are illegal.
Importance:
Reinforced Lalita Kumari guidelines.
Emphasized complainantβs right to FIR registration.
5. βοΈ Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) β Supreme Court
Facts:
Issue related to arrest and investigation following FIR registration.
Held:
Though focused on arrest, SC emphasized that FIR registration must be prompt and proper.
If jurisdictional issues arise, police should not delay but follow proper procedure including sending FIR to correct station.
Importance:
Strengthened procedural safeguards in FIR registration and investigation.
6. βοΈ Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (2012) β Supreme Court
Facts:
Offence allegedly committed outside territorial jurisdiction but FIR registered in a different jurisdiction.
Held:
SC ruled that FIR must be lodged in police station having territorial jurisdiction where the offence occurred.
Police have a duty to transfer FIR to the correct station without delay if registered improperly.
Importance:
Upheld territoriality principle in FIR registration.
𧩠Summary Table: Jurisdictional Issues and Legal Position
| Issue | Legal Position | Case Reference |
|---|---|---|
| FIR refusal due to jurisdiction | Police must still register FIR and transfer | Lalita Kumari (2013) |
| FIR registered outside jurisdiction | Police to transfer FIR to proper station | State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) |
| Investigation across jurisdictions | Police can investigate but FIR registration follows territorial limits | Damu Gopinath Shinde (1999) |
| Police refusal of FIR | Illegal, violates CrPC and Supreme Court rulings | Siddhartha Vashisht (2018) |
| Arrests after FIR | Arrests must follow due procedure; FIR registration must be proper | Arnesh Kumar (2014) |
| FIR registered in wrong station | Must be transferred to proper police station promptly | Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (2012) |
β Conclusion
Territorial jurisdiction is fundamental for FIR registration.
Police cannot refuse FIR registration citing jurisdiction; must register and transfer.
Prompt and proper FIR registration protects rights of complainant and accused.
Courts actively supervise FIR registration to prevent police abuse and procedural lapses.
Jurisdictional issues should never hinder the start of criminal investigation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments