Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

It Would Amount to Dereliction of Duty: Jharkhand High Court Directs Police to Register FIR in Case of Brutal Assault on Petitioner

05 September 2024 5:24 AM

By: Admin


In a critical judgment that reiterates the importance of registering FIRs in cases involving cognizable offences, the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court has mandated the immediate filing of an FIR in the case of Pooja Giri, who suffered brutal assault by police authorities.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, hearing the case, observed, “It is impermissible and it would also amount to dereliction of duty, upon the police officer who has not complied with the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”

The case revolved around the petitioner Pooja Giri, who had filed for an FIR to be registered regarding a brutal assault by In-charge of Sadar Police Station, Niranjan Tiwari. Despite clear evidence and a medical report confirming eight different injuries on the petitioner’s body, the police had failed to register an FIR.

Advocate Suraj Singh, representing the petitioner, argued that this was a violation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s ruling in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, which mandates the registration of FIRs for cognizable offences.

The state counsel, Mr. P.C. Sinha, argued that the petitioner had alternative remedies available and that an FIR for the murder of the petitioner’s brother was already under investigation.

Rejecting the state’s arguments, the judge cited, “This is unfortunate that a citizen has been compelled to move before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for registration of the FIR.”

The Court directed the Director General of Police, State of Jharkhand, and the Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, to register an FIR forthwith. It also instructed that Circular/SOP be issued to all Station House Officers to scrupulously follow the guidelines set in Lalita Kumari’s case.

The judgment serves as a timely reminder for police authorities to adhere strictly to the law, and it underscores the significance of the judiciary in upholding the rule of law.

Date of Decision: 07/15.09.2023

Pooja Giri  vs The State of Jharkhand

Latest Legal News