The Secretary of Home Department was directed to hold a high level meeting, with all the Superintendents of Police of the Districts to formulate the advisory in terms of the directions contained in the case of Lalita Kumari : Tripura High Court
The Tripura High Court in the case of Sri Subhash Pal vs The State Of Tripura & Ors (WP(C) 249 of 2022) upheld that the Secretary of Home Department was directed to hold a high level meeting, with all the Superintendents of Police of the Districts to formulate the advisory in terms of the directions contained in the case of Lalita Kumari.
Facts of the case : The petitioner by filing this writ petition had urged for directing the respondents to treat the complaint filed by the petitioner as the First Information Report (FIR) for the purpose of investigation and prosecuting the offenders.
The petitioner has stated that he has a rubber plantation spreading over a tract of land measuring about 7 kanis. He grew the rubber plantation over that land. The ‘deadly’ accused persons demanded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the petitioner and threatened that unless the money is paid they will not allow the petitioner to enter into his own rubber plantation. The petitioner was severely assaulted on 01.03.2022 by them and as a result he was taken to the Bishalgarh Sub-Divisional Hospital.
The written complaint was filed even though on 01.03.2022 but it was shown to have been filed on 06.03.2022 by the police. The petitioner suffered grievous injuries on 01.03.2022 in the said occurrence. The complaint that had been filed by the petitioner had disclosed commission of cognizable offense but the Officer-in-charge of the Madhupur Police Station played deviant role and did not register FIR in the earliest.
Judgment : The court referred to Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 in which it was laid down that “any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by the Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offense.”
There are traces to believe that the complaint was received on 02.03.2022, if not 01.03.2022. This kind of practice by an officer-in-charge of the police station indicates his serious dereliction in discharging the duties or his acting on influence from the outside. In both the cases, the fair investigation becomes the casualty. It speaks volumes of the organization which the citizens hold as their protector.
The Secretary of Home Department, Government of Tripura was directed to hold a high level meeting, with all the Superintendents of Police of the Districts, Inspector General (Law and Order) and the Director General of Police, Government of Tripura to formulate the advisory in terms of the directions contained in the case of Lalita Kumari. Such advisory shall be sent to all police stations for observing the same in letter and spirit.
JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY : SHUBHANGI CHAUDHARY