Introduction:

In the case of Madhumita Bibi v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (WPA/26197/2024), the Calcutta High Court presided over by Justice Tirthankar Ghosh, highlighted the urgent need for proper training for police officers in handling non-cognizable offences. The court expressed concern over outdated practices being followed by the police, reflecting a lack of adaptation to changing times. The matter arose from a petitioner’s grievance regarding police inaction in a case of alleged embezzlement at a cooperative society, compounded by an assault when the petitioner uncovered incriminating documents. Justice Ghosh criticized the police for filing charges under cognizable sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) without obtaining the requisite permission from the magistrate.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner, Madhumita Bibi, alleged that funds were embezzled at her cooperative society. Upon unearthing documents implicating certain individuals, she claimed to have been physically assaulted. She approached the police with a complaint, which was treated as involving non-cognizable offences. However, no FIR was registered. The petitioner contended that the police, by their inaction and lack of adherence to proper procedures, failed in their statutory duties, leaving her with no legal recourse.

The respondents, representing the police and the State of West Bengal, argued that the complaint was initially categorized as involving non-cognizable offences, limiting the police’s jurisdiction without magistrate approval. However, they admitted that cognizable offences were later included in the chargesheet without judicial sanction. The State defended the police’s actions as procedural errors but contended that no intentional wrongdoing was involved.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Tirthankar Ghosh delivered a scathing critique of the police’s conduct, emphasizing that their actions revealed a lack of training and understanding of procedural requirements under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The court noted that the initial complaint contained elements of non-cognizable offences, which legally required the police to seek the magistrate’s permission before proceeding further. Instead, the police independently incorporated Sections 323 and 506 IPC, converting the case into a cognizable offence without judicial approval.

The court expressed dismay at the police’s reliance on outdated practices stemming from colonial times, remarking that non-cognizable FIRs continue to be handled in an obsolete manner. Justice Ghosh stressed that police officers must adapt to modern legal frameworks and procedural mandates rather than perpetuate historical errors. He highlighted that the failure to seek the magistrate’s leave rendered the subsequent proceedings procedurally defective.

Justice Ghosh clarified that detecting an offence and proceeding with investigations in non-cognizable cases requires judicial oversight to prevent arbitrariness. He remarked that by bypassing the magistrate, the police essentially acted in a private capacity, which is impermissible under the law. The court underscored that such lapses necessitate immediate corrective measures in the form of relevant training for police personnel to ensure compliance with procedural norms.

The court directed the magistrate to adjudicate the matter by the law and take appropriate steps concerning the petitioner’s complaint. It emphasized the need for accountability and procedural adherence to upholding the rule of law, ensuring justice for individuals who face grievances stemming from police inaction or procedural lapses.