Anyone Including Victims, Eyewitnesses Or Cops Having Knowledge Of Commission Of Cognizable Offence Can Lodge FIR: Allahabad HC

This includes not only the victim or an eyewitness but also any person who becomes cognizant of the offence, extending even to police officers themselves, the Court added.

“The universality of the authority to lodge an F.I.R. is a foundational principle ensuring that the criminal justice system remains accessible to those with information about potential criminal acts. This inclusivity empowers informants comprising victims, eyewitnesses, and even law enforcement officers to initiate the process, fostering a collaborative and comprehensive approach to crime reporting,” a bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Vinod Diwakar observed.

The Court made these observations while dismissing a criminal writ petition moved by one Ajay Rai challenging the legality and correctness of an FIR lodged against him under section 409 IPC (Criminal breach of trust by public servant).

The case in brief

Essentially, the prosecution case was that during an inspection by the Additional District Co-operative Officer at Sikhadi Samiti, the Officiating Secretary i.e. the petitioner (Ajay Rai) was observed engaging in certain illegalities leading to his suspension.

Subsequently, vide order dated 23rd November 2022, by invoking section 66 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, a detailed inquiry was conducted by a three-member committee. The findings of the inquiry revealed that the petitioner had misappropriated a sum of Rs.16,17,833/-. Pursuant to this, an FIR was lodged against him.

Challenging the FIR, the petitioner moved the HC contending that that the registration of the FIR contravenes Government Order (dated 16.8.2000), which stipulates that in such cases, the Regional Deputy Commissioner, Co-operative, Varanasi, is empowered to register the FIR However, in this instance, the impugned F.I.R. was registered based on the complaint of the Additional District Co-operative Officer, Jakhniya, Ghazipur.

It was also argued that requisite approval from the Registrar, Co-operative, was not obtained before the registration of the impugned FIR (following mandate of Sections 103 and 105 of the 1965 Act).

On the other hand, the counsel for the state argued that serious allegations against the petitioner had been levelled which are evident in the FIR and the inquiry report, establishing the ingredients of a cognizable offence.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court stressed the importance of an FIR, calling it an indispensable document in the realm of criminal justice “which serves as the linchpin, marking the commencement of criminal proceedings and facilitating the subsequent investigation into alleged offences.”

Referring to the mandate of Sections 154 and 155 of the CrPC, which delineate the procedure and authority for lodging an FIR, the Court noted that Section 154 of the CrPC “encapsulates the immediacy and compulsoriness with which the FIR must be lodged to set the criminal justice machinery in motion promptly by the informant”.

The Court further observed that anyone possessing knowledge about the commission of a cognizable offence has the authority to file an FIR including not only the victim or an eyewitness but also any person who becomes cognizant of the offence.

Against this backdrop, regarding the contention of the petitioner that an appropriate authority had not lodged the FIR against him, the Court noted that in the instant case, the Assistant Commissioner-cum-Assistant Registrar, Co-operative had delegated his authority to the Additional District Co-operative Officer to register the FIR and therefore, the petitioner's argument had no legal strength and was thus misplaced.

The Court further underscored that he combined examination of the concept of delegated legislation in administrative jurisprudence and the guiding principles derived from Lalita Kumari vs State of UP case clarifies that registration of FIR by the Assistant Commissioner or Additional District Co-operative Officer is inconsequential and the “crucial consideration lies in determining whether the contents of the F.I.R. forms part of the cognizable offence or not”.

To make things even clearer, the Court, in its order, stated that the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 remains silent on the specific procedure for registering an F.I.R. in cases involving embezzlement of society funds and the illicit recovery of credit from farmers, therefore, the Court held, general legal principles in the regards would be applicable.

Lastly, turning to the facts of the case serious allegations of embezzlement amounting to Rs.16,17,833.00 had been levelled, which was allegedly collected unlawfully from impoverished farmers by the Officiating Secretary of the Samiti and the FIR followed a conclusive determination of embezzlement by a three-member committee.

In view of this, finding no substantive reasons to dispute the findings of this committee, which serves as the basis for the impugned FIR, the Court dismissed the writ plea.

Case title - Ajay Rai vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 15

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 15

Click Here To Read/Download Order