The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently addressed a writ petition challenging the registration of an FIR under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), where the petitioner alleged coercion and lack of knowledge. The Court closed the petition after the police referred the case as false, underscoring the importance of lawful FIR registration and the availability of legal remedies for aggrieved parties.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Smt Tammisetty Yuvarani, alleged that her brother cheated her by obtaining her signature under false pretenses, specifically for a loan and a Partition Deed dated 17.12.2015. She claimed that Respondent No. 4 (Station House Officer, Bhimavaram I Town Police Station) registered FIR No. 278 of 2020 without her knowledge, based on a coerced statement taken during an inquiry.
Key Facts
- 17.12.2015: Partition Deed executed, allegedly under false pretenses.
- 16.09.2020: Petitioner lodged a complaint alleging cheating by her brother.
- 16.09.2020: FIR No. 278 of 2020 registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Bhimavaram I Town Police Station.
- Petitioner alleged that the FIR was registered based on a coerced statement taken during an inquiry, without her knowledge.
- S.R. No. 3337 of 2020: Petitioner filed a complaint before the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram.
- 01.02.2021: Magistrate directed the police to register an FIR.
- 01.03.2021: Police filed a memo stating that FIR No. 278 of 2020 was already registered on 16.09.2020.
- 26.11.2021: Police referred the case as false (C.No. 840/SDPO-N/2021), stating the petitioner received her share of Rs. 2,50,000 and filed the complaint to exert pressure for monetary gain.
Procedural History
- 16.09.2020: FIR registered (Crime No. 278 of 2020).
- S.R. No. 3337 of 2020: Complaint filed before the Magistrate.
- 01.02.2021: Magistrate directed police to register an FIR.
- 01.03.2021: Police memo stating FIR was already registered.
- 23.12.2021: Writ Petition (WP No. 23465/2021) filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
- 26.11.2021: Police referred the case as false.
- 31.03.2026: High Court closed the writ petition.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- A writ of mandamus declaring the registration of FIR No. 278 of 2020 as illegal and contrary to law.
- Directions to Respondent No. 4 to register an FIR based on the Magistrate’s order dated 01.02.2021.
- Interim relief for the production of CCTV footage from 14.09.2020 to 16.09.2020 to substantiate her claims.
- Stay on the investigation of Crime No. 278 of 2020 during the pendency of the writ petition.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the police could register an FIR based on a coerced statement taken without the complainant’s knowledge and whether such registration violated the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under criminal law.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner contended that FIR No. 278 of 2020 was registered based on a coerced statement taken during an inquiry, without her knowledge or consent.
- She argued that the police failed to follow the Magistrate’s order dated 01.02.2021, which directed the registration of an FIR.
- The petitioner sought the production of CCTV footage to prove her allegations of coercion and procedural irregularities.
For the Respondent
- The Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that the petitioner lodged the complaint alleging cheating by her brother.
- The police investigation revealed that the petitioner received her share of Rs. 2,50,000 and filed the complaint to exert pressure for monetary gain.
- The case was referred as false (C.No. 840/SDPO-N/2021), and no further action was required.
The Court's Analysis
The Court noted that the police had already referred the case as false, rendering the petitioner’s challenge to the FIR’s registration moot. The Court emphasized that:
- The registration of an FIR based on a coerced statement, without the complainant’s knowledge, would violate procedural fairness and natural justice.
- However, since the police had referred the case as false, no further orders were necessary in the writ petition.
- The Court clarified that the petitioner was at liberty to avail other legal remedies if aggrieved by the police’s decision.
"In view of the fact that on the self-same allegations the said crime was registered and it was referred as False, no orders are required to be passed in the present Writ Petition."
The Verdict
The Court closed the writ petition (WP No. 23465/2021) with the following observations:
- The petitioner’s challenge to the FIR’s registration was rendered infructuous as the police referred the case as false.
- No orders were passed regarding the production of CCTV footage or the stay on investigation.
- The petitioner was left to pursue other legal remedies if aggrieved by the police’s decision.
- There was no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Police Cannot Register FIRs Based on Coerced Statements
- The judgment underscores that FIR registration must comply with procedural fairness. Police cannot register an FIR based on statements obtained through coercion or without the complainant’s knowledge.
- Practitioners should argue that any FIR registered under such circumstances is illegal and liable to be quashed.
Remedies Available for Aggrieved Parties
- If an FIR is registered unlawfully, aggrieved parties can:
- File a writ petition challenging the FIR’s registration.
- Seek CCTV footage or other evidence to substantiate claims of coercion or procedural irregularities.
- Approach the Magistrate for directions under Section 156(3) CrPC if the police refuse to register an FIR.
False Case Referrals and Legal Recourse
- If the police refer a case as false, the complainant is not left without remedy. They can:
- Challenge the police’s decision before the Magistrate or High Court.
- File a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC if the police fail to act.
- Seek compensation for harassment or malicious prosecution under Section 357 CrPC or tort law.
