Introduction:
In Ramana Reddy G V v. State of Karnataka and Anr., Criminal Petition No. 6805 of 2022, the Karnataka High Court delivered a significant ruling reinforcing procedural safeguards under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Justice M.G. Uma quashed an FIR registered against the petitioner for offences under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 427 (mischief causing damage), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The Court found that the FIR had been registered based on a second complaint that was substantially similar to the earlier one, despite a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) having already been issued on the first complaint. Holding that the police could not ignore the earlier NCR and mechanically register an FIR without following the prescribed procedure under Sections 154(3) and 155 CrPC, the Court termed the registration of the FIR an abuse of the process of law and allowed the petition.
Factual Background:
The case stemmed from allegations made by a woman complainant against the petitioner, who was working as a Junior Wireless Officer. According to her, the petitioner entered her chamber in an agitated state and began shouting at her. Feeling threatened, she immediately called her colleagues for assistance. She further alleged that the petitioner lifted a chair and threatened to smash her head with it.
The complainant claimed that she began recording the petitioner’s conduct on her mobile phone, as she believed she was being criminally intimidated. She alleged that the petitioner approached her, snatched her mobile phone, and damaged it. On the same day as the incident, she approached the police and lodged a complaint.
The police registered a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) based on this initial complaint. An NCR is issued when the alleged offences are classified as non-cognizable, meaning the police cannot investigate without prior permission from a Magistrate.
However, after a lapse of twelve days from the date of the incident, the complainant submitted another complaint on September 15, 2021. Based on this second complaint, the police registered a formal FIR invoking Sections 341, 427, 504, and 506 IPC and proceeded with investigation.
Aggrieved by this development, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR.
Arguments Advanced by the Petitioner:
The petitioner contended that the FIR was illegal and liable to be quashed as it was registered on the basis of a second complaint that was virtually identical to the first complaint, upon which an NCR had already been issued.
It was argued that once the police had classified the offences as non-cognizable and registered an NCR, they were bound to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 155 CrPC. Under Section 155, the police cannot investigate a non-cognizable offence without obtaining an order from the Magistrate.
The petitioner submitted that the complainant had not followed the statutory remedy available under Section 154(3) CrPC. This provision permits an informant to approach the Superintendent of Police in writing if the officer-in-charge of the police station refuses to register an FIR. In the present case, there was no allegation that such a procedure was adopted.
It was further contended that the second complaint was verbatim similar to the first complaint. There were no new facts or additional allegations that could justify registration of an FIR after issuance of the NCR.
The petitioner also emphasized that allowing the police to register an FIR on the basis of a similar second complaint, without assigning reasons for deviating from the earlier NCR, would amount to arbitrary exercise of power and abuse of the legal process.
Arguments on Behalf of the State and the Complainant:
On behalf of the State and the complainant, it was submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner were serious in nature and disclosed the commission of cognizable offences, particularly criminal intimidation and mischief.
It was argued that the complainant had also approached the National Commission for Women regarding the incident, demonstrating her bona fide intention to seek redressal. The subsequent registration of the FIR was justified in light of the gravity of the allegations.
The respondents contended that the High Court should not interfere at the threshold stage of investigation unless there was a clear case of abuse of process or lack of prima facie material.
Judicial Analysis:
Justice M.G. Uma carefully examined the sequence of events and the statutory framework governing registration of FIRs and NCRs.
The Court first noted the undisputed fact that an NCR had been registered on the same day as the incident. This indicated that, at the time of the first complaint, the police had treated the alleged offences as non-cognizable.
The Court then observed that the FIR was registered twelve days later based on a second complaint that was substantially similar to the first one. There was no explanation in the final report as to why the earlier NCR was disregarded or what new material justified the registration of an FIR.
Referring to Section 154(3) CrPC, the Court highlighted that if an officer-in-charge refuses to register an FIR, the informant may send the substance of such information in writing to the Superintendent of Police. The provision ensures that the informant has a statutory remedy in case of refusal.
However, in the present case, the complainant had admittedly not followed this procedure. There was no indication that the Superintendent of Police had been approached or that any direction had been issued under Section 154(3).
The Court further emphasized the procedure under Section 155 CrPC, which governs investigation into non-cognizable offences. Once an NCR is registered, the police cannot proceed to investigate without obtaining an order from the Magistrate. The statutory safeguards are designed to prevent arbitrary action and ensure judicial oversight.
The Court observed:
“Therefore, once NCR is registered, the Police Officer cannot proceed to register the FIR on the basis of a similar second complaint and proceed with the investigation without assigning any reason for such action. Under such circumstance, I am of the opinion that registration of FIR, ignoring the earlier NCR that was issued and initiation of investigation is in abuse of process of law.”
The Bench found that there was no material on record to show that any proceedings had actually taken place before the National Commission for Women. The mere assertion that the complainant had approached the Commission did not alter the procedural lapses in the registration of the FIR.
Abuse of Process and Exercise of Inherent Powers:
The High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of law. The Court noted that allowing such FIRs to stand would undermine the procedural safeguards built into the criminal justice system.
The decision reflects a broader principle: criminal law cannot be set in motion arbitrarily or in disregard of statutory procedures. When the police themselves initially classify allegations as non-cognizable and issue an NCR, they must adhere to the procedural framework under Section 155 CrPC. A subsequent change in course requires justification and compliance with law.
The Court underscored that procedural safeguards are not empty formalities but essential checks against misuse of power. Ignoring an earlier NCR and registering an FIR based on a similar complaint, without explanation, amounts to abuse of process.
Final Decision:
In light of the above findings, the Karnataka High Court quashed the FIR registered against the petitioner. The criminal petition was allowed.
The judgment serves as a reminder that criminal investigations must adhere strictly to statutory procedures. The police cannot bypass the framework established under the CrPC by mechanically registering an FIR on a second complaint identical to the first.