The Calcutta High Court clarified that police must register an FIR if a complaint discloses cognizable offences, regardless of the complainant’s subsequent withdrawal or reluctance. This judgment affirms the mandatory nature of FIR registration and sets aside contrary procedural handling, reasserting binding precedent for all subordinate courts in West Bengal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAT/1189/2025 of SK ARBAJ Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0352872025 |
| Date of Registration | 29-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK, HON’BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench (Justice Debangsu Basak & Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in West Bengal |
| Overrules / Affirms | Sets aside the order of the learned Single Judge in WPA 11796 of 2025 |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure – FIR Registration |
| Questions of Law | Whether police can decline to register an FIR disclosing a cognizable offence solely based on the complainant’s subsequent withdrawal or disinclination. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
Once the police receive a complaint disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no question of the complainant’s withdrawal precluding FIR registration. The mandatory duty to register the FIR remains unaffected by any subsequent withdrawal or reluctance by the complainant. The police had themselves formed the opinion that an FIR was required; justifications based on withdrawal are untenable. The impugned approach, which allowed non-registration on this ground, was improper and was accordingly set aside. Police authorities must proceed to register the FIR promptly. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Not specifically mentioned in the judgment. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court reasoned with reference to the mandatory statutory scheme of FIR registration upon disclosure of cognizable offences and the clear view expressed by the Officer-in-Charge in the present case. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Appellant’s complaint disclosed cognizable offences; Officer-in-Charge recommended FIR registration; subsequently, appellant allegedly withdrew request; police used this as justification for not registering FIR. The appellant claims the withdrawal was under pressure. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and police authorities in West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and criminal law practitioners across India |
| Overrules | Order dated June 23, 2025 passed in WPA 11796 of 2025 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that police cannot refuse to register an FIR for a cognizable offence merely because the complainant expresses withdrawal or reluctance after lodging the complaint.
- The mandatory duty to register an FIR is triggered once a cognizable offence is disclosed, and this duty prevails regardless of the complainant’s subsequent statement or position.
- The Court set aside the contrary approach adopted by the Single Judge and required police to register the FIR within seven days, creating a clear procedural requirement.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Division Bench noted that the complaint clearly disclosed cognizable offences and the Officer-in-Charge’s own report admitted that the FIR was required to be registered.
- The only justification for failure to register was the appellant’s supposed subsequent withdrawal or reluctance.
- The Court held that there is no legal basis for allowing withdrawal to preclude registration of an FIR — once a cognizable offence is disclosed, FIR registration is mandatory under the statutory scheme.
- The preliminary enquiry by police, which concluded that an FIR was called for, makes the legal requirement imminent, not subject to further negotiation or withdrawal of the complainant.
- Consequently, the order of the Single Judge suggesting alternative recourse (approaching the Magistrate) was set aside, and directions were issued for immediate FIR registration.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The appellant’s complaint disclosed cognizable offences.
- The Officer-in-Charge’s report supported FIR registration.
- The appellant’s withdrawal was allegedly the result of pressure.
State:
- Represented in the proceedings; specific arguments not detailed in the judgment extract.
Factual Background
The appellant lodged a complaint with police alleging facts amounting to cognizable offences. The Officer-in-Charge concluded that an FIR should be registered on these facts. However, the police did not register the FIR, citing the appellant’s alleged reluctance or withdrawal from the process. The appellant claimed this withdrawal was due to external pressure. The Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by directing the appellant to approach the Magistrate, but the Division Bench found this order unsatisfactory.
Statutory Analysis
The Court analyzed the statutory duty regarding registration of FIRs on receipt of complaints disclosing cognizable offences. The judgment emphasized the absence of any exception in the law allowing withdrawal or reluctance of the complainant to override the police’s duty to register an FIR under such circumstances.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions are present or noted in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court issued a direction for FIR registration within seven days.
- The previous order requiring the complainant to approach the Magistrate was set aside, affirming that FIR registration must follow complaints disclosing cognizable offences.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms the mandatory nature of FIR registration for cognizable offences despite any withdrawal.
Citations
No SCC/AIR/neutral citation or detailed paragraph numbers provided in the judgment extract.