LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Computer Rath (Jr. Associate)     22 August 2014

Delay in filling a fir after 14 months

A FIR has been registered at a Nagpur Police Station. The same has been registered after 14 months from the date of occurance. Also it has been reflected in the FIR.

The complainant & accused both resides at Orissa, but the Complainant shows the place of occurance at Nagpur & filled a FIR. after 14 months. It also been registered.

This has been done with a mala-fide intention. 

Fir lodged u/s-354 (A),509,294 & 506 of IPC.

What is the remedy to get out of it.



Learning

 3 Replies

Ashok, Advocate (Lawyer at Delhi)     23 August 2014

One of the sections mentioned by you is for offence under Section 354-A of IPC. Please note that this offence was created for the first time by an amendment which is effective since 3 Feb 2013. So, check whether the date of offence (which is 14 months back) is before this date, in which case this offence cannot be made out.

 

Secondly, registration of the offence appears to be within limitation as per the provisions of Section 468 of Cr.P.C. in view of the nature of offences (and sections) mentioned by you.

 

Thirdly, notwithstanding what is mentioned above, the fact remains that a delayed registration of FIR is a major defect in the case and it may also be because of a false report. Even if charge sheet is filed and prosecution launched, a delayed FIR would be a major lacuna in the case.

 

Fourthly, you can challenge the FIR before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying for quashing of FIR, though the success may not be guaranteed and depends on facts of your case.

1 Like

Computer Rath (Jr. Associate)     24 August 2014

Thank You Sir,

May I know Sec-506 IPC is  Bailable or Non Bailable as per Maharastra State Amendment.

as in general it is Non-Cognizable & bailable one.

Ashok, Advocate (Lawyer at Delhi)     24 August 2014

I have cross-checked in 2-3 latest Cr.P.C. bare Act / books, and as per Schedule-I to Cr.P.C., offence under Section 506 IPC is bailable and non-cognizable, and there is NO mention of any Maharashtra State Amendment for Section 506 IPC. 

 

However, I may point out that in view of a Government of Maharashtra Notification, which was issued in the year 1962 in exercise of the powers conferred by section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, the offence of criminal intimidation punishable under section 506 of IPC where the threat is to cause death or grievous hurt or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or to impute unchastity to a woman, when committed in Greater Bombay shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898) (V of 1898), be cognizable and non-bailable. [It is pertinent to point out that power to issue such Notification was given under the said Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, without there being any need for formally amending Cr.P.C.].

 

 

 

Thus, in so far as Greater Bombay area of Maharashtra is concerned offence under Section 506 IPC shall be cognizable and non-bailable if the threat related to the aforesaid purposes. However, for the remaining parts of Maharashtra, offence under Section 506 IPC is bailable and non-cognizable.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Related Threads


Loading