Case Summary
| Citation | Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.2013(13) SCALE 559 |
| Keywords | FIR, Cognizable offence, Mandatory FIR, SHO, Investigation, Arrest, Preliminary Inquiry, Habeas Corpus, Writ, Article 32 |
| Facts | The grievance in the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, is that on a written report was submitted by the petitioner before the officer in-charge of the police station concerned who did not take any action on the same. Thereafter, when the Superintendent of Police was moved, an FIR was registered. According to the petitioner, even thereafter, steps were not taken either for apprehending the accused or for the recovery of the minor girl child. |
| Issues | 1. Whether the immediate non-registration of FIR leads to scope for manipulation by the police which affects the right of the victim/complainant to have a complaint immediately investigated upon allegations being made; and 2. Whether in cases where the complaint/information does not clearly disclose the commission of a cognizable offence but the FIR is compulsorily registered then does it infringe the rights of an accused. |
| Contentions | 1. that upon receipt of information by a police officer in-charge of a police station disclosing a cognizable offence, it is imperative for him to register a case under Section 154 of the Code 2. that an officer in-charge of a police station is not obliged under law, upon receipt of information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, to register a case rather the discretion lies with him, in appropriate cases, to hold some sort of preliminary inquiry in relation to the veracity or otherwise of the accusations made in the report. And that mandatory registration of FIRs will lead to arbitrary arrest, which will directly be in contravention of Article 21 of the Constitution. |
| Law Points | Section 154, Section 156, Section 157. |
| Judgement | Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: Matrimonial disputes/family disputes Commercial offences Medical negligence cases Corruption cases Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed fifteen days generally and in exceptional cases, by giving adequate reasons, six weeks time is provided. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.” Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above. |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority | While registration of FIR is mandatory, arrest of the accused immediately on registration of FIR is not at all mandatory. In fact, registration of FIR and arrest of an accused person are two entirely different concepts under the law, and there are several safeguards available against arrest. Moreover, it is also pertinent to mention that an accused person also has a right to apply for “anticipatory bail” under the provisions of Section 438 of the Code if the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. Thus, in appropriate cases, he can avoid the arrest under that provision by obtaining an order from the Court. It is also relevant to note that in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. [(1994) 4 SCC 260], this Court has held that arrest cannot be made by police in a routine manner. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided if a police officer issues notice to person to attend the Station House and not to leave the Station without permission would do.” The remedy lies in strictly enforcing the safeguards available against arbitrary arrests made by the police and not in allowing the police to avoid mandatory registration of FIR when the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Thus, the arrest of a person and registration of FIR are not directly and/or irreversibly linked and they are entirely different concepts operating under entirely different parameters. On the other hand, if a police officer misuses his power of arrest, he can be tried and punished under Section 166. Besides, the Code gives power to the police to close a matter both before and after investigation. 41st Report of the Law Commission of India on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 as follows: “14.1…….If the offence does not appear to be serious and if the station-house officer thinks there is no sufficient ground for starting an investigation, he need not investigate but, here again, he has to send a report to the Magistrate who can direct the police to investigate, or if the Magistrate thinks fit, hold an inquiry himself.” yet, there may be instances where preliminary inquiry may be required owing to the change in genesis and novelty of crimes with the passage of time. |
Full Case Details
P. Sathasivam, CJI.: 1) The important issue which arises for consideration in the referred
matter is whether “a police officer is bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon
receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) or the police officer has the power
to conduct a “preliminary inquiry” in order to test the veracity of such information before
registering the same?”
2) The present writ petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution, has been filed by one Lalita
Kumari (minor) through her father, viz., Shri Bhola Kamat for the issuance of a writ of Habeas
Corpus or direction(s) of like nature against the respondents herein for the protection of his
minor daughter who has been kidnapped. The grievance in the said writ petition is that on
11.05.2008, a written report was submitted by the petitioner before the officer in-charge of the
police station concerned who did not take any action on the same. Thereafter, when the
Superintendent of Police was moved, an FIR was registered. According to the petitioner, even
thereafter, steps were not taken either for apprehending the accused or for the recovery of the
minor girl child.
3) A two-Judge Bench of this Court in, Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar
Pradesh [(2008) 7 SCC 164] after noticing the disparity in registration of FIRs by police
officers on case to case basis across the country, issued notice to the Union of India, the Chief
Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories and Director Generals of
Police/Commissioners of Police to the effect that if steps are not taken for registration of FIRs
immediately and the copies thereof are not handed over to the complainants, they may move
the Magistrates concerned by filing complaint petitions for appropriate direction(s) to the police
to register the case immediately and for apprehending the accused persons, failing which,
contempt proceedings must be initiated against such delinquent police officers if no sufficient
cause is shown.
4) Pursuant to the above directions, when the matter was heard by the very same Bench in Lalita
Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh [(2008) 14 SCC 337] Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned
senior counsel for the petitioner, projected his claim that upon receipt of information by a police
officer in-charge of a police station disclosing a cognizable offence, it is imperative for him to
register a case under Section 154 of the Code and placed reliance upon two-Judge Bench
decisions of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], Ramesh
Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2006) 2 SCC 677] and Parkash Singh Badal v. State of
Punjab [(2007) 1 SCC 1]. On the other hand, Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel for
the State of Maharashtra submitted that an officer in-charge of a police station is not obliged
under law, upon receipt of information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, to
register a case rather the discretion lies with him, in appropriate cases, to hold some sort of
preliminary inquiry in relation to the veracity or otherwise of the accusations made in the report.
In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon two-Judge Bench decisions of this Court
6
in P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras [(1970) 1 SCC 595], Sevi v. State of Tamil Nadu [1981
Supp SCC 43], Shashikant v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2007) 1 SCC 630],
and Rajinder Singh Katoch v. Chandigarh Admn. [(2007) 10 SCC 69]. In view of the
conflicting decisions of this Court on the issue, the said bench, vide order dated 16.09.2008,
referred the same to a larger bench.
5) Ensuing compliance to the above direction, the matter pertaining to Lalita Kumari was heard
by a Bench of three-Judges in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh [(2012) 4 SCC
1] wherein, this Court, after hearing various counsel representing Union of India, States and
Union Territories and also after adverting to all the conflicting decisions extensively, referred
the matter to a Constitution Bench while concluding as under:-
“97. We have carefully analysed various judgments delivered by this Court in the last several
decades. We clearly discern divergent judicial opinions of this Court on the main issue:
whether under Section 154 CrPC, a police officer is bound to register an FIR when a
cognizable offence is made out or he (police officer) has an option, discretion or latitude of
conducting some kind of preliminary inquiry before registering the FIR.
98. The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India and different States have expressed
totally divergent views even before this Court. This Court also carved out a special category
in the case of medical doctors in the aforementioned cases of Santosh Kumar and Suresh
Gupta where preliminary inquiry had been postulated before registering an FIR. Some
counsel also submitted that the CBI Manual also envisages some kind of preliminary inquiry
before registering the FIR.
99. The issue which has arisen for consideration in these cases is of great public importance.
In view of the divergent opinions in a large number of cases decided by this Court, it has
become extremely important to have a clear enunciation of law and adjudication by a larger
Bench of this Court for the benefit of all concerned-the courts, the investigating agencies
and the citizens.
100. Consequently, we request the Hon’ble the Chief Justice to refer these matters to a
Constitution Bench of at least five Judges of this Court for an authoritative judgment.”
6) Therefore, the only question before this Constitution Bench relates to the interpretation of
Section 154 of the Code and incidentally to consider Sections 156 and 157 also.
22) The issues before the Constitution Bench of this Court arise out of two main conflicting
areas of concern, viz.,
(i) Whether the immediate non-registration of FIR leads to scope for manipulation by the police
which affects the right of the victim/complainant to have a complaint immediately investigated
upon allegations being made; and
(ii) Whether in cases where the complaint/information does not clearly disclose the commission
of a cognizable offence but the FIR is compulsorily registered then does it infringe the rights
of an accused.
86) The underpinnings of compulsory registration of FIR is not only to ensure transparency in
the criminal justice delivery system but also to ensure ‘judicial oversight’. Section 157(1)
7
7
deploys the word ‘forthwith’. Thus, any information received under Section 154(1) or otherwise
has to be duly informed in the form of a report to the Magistrate. Thus, the commission of a
cognizable offence is not only brought to the knowledge of the investigating agency but also to
the subordinate judiciary.
87) The Code contemplates two kinds of FIRs. The duly signed FIR under Section 154(1) is by
the informant to the concerned officer at the police station. The second kind of FIR could be
which is registered by the police itself on any information received or other than by way of an
informant [Section 157(1)] and even this information has to be duly recorded and the copy
should be sent to the Magistrate forthwith.
88) The registration of FIR either on the basis of the information furnished by the informant
under Section 154(1) of the Code or otherwise under Section 157(1) of the Code is obligatory.
The obligation to register FIR has inherent advantages:
a) It is the first step to ‘access to justice’ for a victim.
b) It upholds the ‘Rule of Law’ inasmuch as the ordinary person brings forth the commission
of a cognizable crime in the knowledge of the State.
c) It also facilitates swift investigation and sometimes even prevention of the crime. In both
cases, it only effectuates the regime of law.
d) It leads to less manipulation in criminal cases and lessens incidents of ‘ante-dates’ FIR or
deliberately delayed FIR.
92) According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons, protection of the interests of the poor
is clearly one of the main objects of the Code. Making registration of information relating to
commission of a cognizable offence mandatory would help the society, especially, the poor in
rural and remote areas of the country.
93) The Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System headed by Dr. Justice V.S.
Malimath also noticed the plight faced by several people due to non-registration of FIRs and
recommended that action should be taken against police officers who refuse to register such
information. The Committee observed:-
“7.19.1 According to the Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the office incharge
of a police station is mandated to register every information oral or written relating to the
commission of a cognizable offence. Non-registration of cases is a serious complaint against
the police. The National Police Commission in its 4th report lamented that the police “evade
registering cases for taking up investigation where specific complaints are lodged at the
police stations”. It referred to a study conducted by the Indian Institute of Public Opinion,
New Delhi regarding “Image of the Police in India” which observed that over 50% of the
respondents mention non-registration of complaints as a common practice in police stations.
7.19.2 The Committee recommends that all complaints should be registered promptly,
failing which appropriate action should be taken. This would necessitate change in the mind
– set of the political executive and that of senior officers.
7.19.4 There are two more aspects relating to registration. The first is minimization of
offences by the police by way of not invoking appropriate sections of law. We disapprove
8
of this tendency. Appropriate sections of law should be invoked in each case unmindfull of
the gravity of offences involved. The second issue is relating to the registration of written
complaints. There is an increasing tendency amongst the police station officers to advise the
informants, who come to give oral complaints, to bring written complaints. This is wrong.
Registration is delayed resulting in valuable loss of time in launching the investigation and
apprehension of criminals. Besides, the complainant gets an opportunity to consult his
friends, relatives and sometimes even lawyers and often tends to exaggerate the crime and
implicate innocent persons. This eventually has adverse effect at the trial. The information
should be reduced in writing by the SH, if given orally, without any loss of time so that the
first version of the alleged crime comes on record.
7.20.11 It has come to the notice of the Committee that even in cognizable cases quite often
the Police officers do not entertain the complaint and send the complainant away saying that
the offence is not cognizable. Sometimes the police twist facts to bring the case within the
cognizable category even though it is non-cognizable, due to political or other pressures or
corruption. This menace can be stopped by making it obligatory on the police officer to
register every complaint received by him. Breach of this duty should become an offence
punishable in law to prevent misuse of the power by the police officer.”
94) It means that the number of FIRs not registered is approximately equivalent to the number
of FIRs actually registered. Keeping in view the NCRB figures that show that about 60 lakh
cognizable offences were registered in India during the year 2012, the burking of crime may
itself be in the range of about 60 lakh every year. Thus, it is seen that such a large number of
FIRs are not registered every year, which is a clear violation of the rights of the victims of such
a large number of crimes.
95) Burking of crime leads to dilution of the rule of law in the short run; and also has a very
negative impact on the rule of law in the long run since people stop having respect for rule of
law. Thus, non-registration of such a large number of FIRs leads to a definite lawlessness in the
society.
96) Therefore, reading Section 154 in any other form would not only be detrimental to the
Scheme of the Code but also to the society as a whole. It is thus seen that this Court has
repeatedly held in various decided cases that registration of FIR is mandatory if the information
given to the police under Section 154 of the Code discloses the commission of a cognizable
offence.
Is there a likelihood of misuse of the provision?
97) Another, stimulating argument raised in support of preliminary inquiry is that mandatory
registration of FIRs will lead to arbitrary arrest, which will directly be in contravention of
Article 21 of the Constitution.
98) While registration of FIR is mandatory, arrest of the accused immediately on registration
of FIR is not at all mandatory. In fact, registration of FIR and arrest of an accused person are
two entirely different concepts under the law, and there are several safeguards available against
9
9
arrest. Moreover, it is also pertinent to mention that an accused person also has a right to apply
for “anticipatory bail” under the provisions of Section 438 of the Code if the conditions
mentioned therein are satisfied. Thus, in appropriate cases, he can avoid the arrest under that
provision by obtaining an order from the Court.
99) It is also relevant to note that in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. [(1994) 4 SCC 260], this
Court has held that arrest cannot be made by police in a routine manner. Some important
observations are reproduced as under:-
“20…No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an
offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of
protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no
arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as
to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the
person’s complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty
is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the
constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A
person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must
be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such
arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided if a
police officer issues notice to person to attend the Station House and not to leave the Station
without permission would do.”
100) The registration of FIR under Section 154 of the Code and arrest of an accused person
under Section 41 are two entirely different things. It is not correct to say that just because FIR
is registered, the accused person can be arrested immediately. It is the imaginary fear that
“merely because FIR has been registered, it would require arrest of the accused and thereby
leading to loss of his reputation” and it should not be allowed by this Court to hold that
registration of FIR is not mandatory to avoid such inconvenience to some persons. The remedy
lies in strictly enforcing the safeguards available against arbitrary arrests made by the police
and not in allowing the police to avoid mandatory registration of FIR when the information
discloses commission of a cognizable offence.
101) This can also be seen from the fact that Section 151 of the Code allows a police officer to
arrest a person, even before the commission of a cognizable offence, in order to prevent the
commission of that offence, if it cannot be prevented otherwise. Such preventive arrests can be
valid for 24 hours. However, a Maharashtra State amendment to Section 151 allows the custody
of a person in that State even for up to a period of 30 days (with the order of the Judicial
Magistrate) even before a cognizable offence is committed in order to prevent commission of
such offence. Thus, the arrest of a person and registration of FIR are not directly and/or
irreversibly linked and they are entirely different concepts operating under entirely different
parameters. On the other hand, if a police officer misuses his power of arrest, he can be tried
and punished under Section 166.
10
102) Besides, the Code gives power to the police to close a matter both before and after
investigation. A police officer can foreclose an FIR before an investigation under Section 157
of the Code, if it appears to him that there is no sufficient ground to investigate the same. The
Section itself states that a police officer can start investigation when he has a ‘reason to suspect
the commission of an offence’. Therefore, the requirements of launching an investigation under
Section 157 of the Code are higher than the requirement under Section 154 of the Code. The
police officer can also, in a given case, investigate the matter and then file a final report under
Section 173 of the Code seeking closure of the matter. Therefore, the police is not liable to
launch an investigation in every FIR which is mandatorily registered on receiving information
relating to commission of a cognizable offence.
103) Likewise, giving power to the police to close an investigation, Section 157 of the Code
also acts like a check on the police to make sure that it is dispensing its function of investigating
cognizable offences. This has been recorded in the 41st Report of the Law Commission of India
on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 as follows:
“14.1…….If the offence does not appear to be serious and if the station-house officer thinks
there is no sufficient ground for starting an investigation, he need not investigate but, here
again, he has to send a report to the Magistrate who can direct the police to investigate, or if
the Magistrate thinks fit, hold an inquiry himself.”
“14.2. A noticeable feature of the scheme as outlined above is that a Magistrate is kept in
the picture at all stages of the police investigation, but he is not authorized to interfere with
the actual investigation or to direct the police how that investigation is to be conducted.”
Therefore, the Scheme of the Code not only ensures that the time of the police should not
be wasted on false and frivolous information but also that the police should not intentionally
refrain from doing their duty of investigating cognizable offences. As a result, the
apprehension of misuse of the provision of mandatory registration of FIR is unfounded and
speculative in nature.
104) It is the stand of Mr. Naphade, learned senior counsel for the State of Maharashtra that
when an innocent person is falsely implicated, he not only suffers from loss of reputation but
also from mental tension and his personal liberty is seriously impaired. He relied on
the Maneka Gandhi (supra), which held the proposition that the law which deprives a person
of his personal liberty must be reasonable both from the stand point of substantive as well as
procedural aspect is now firmly established in our Constitutional law. Therefore, he pleaded for
a fresh look at Section 154 of the Code, which interprets Section 154 of the Code in conformity
with the mandate of Article 21.
105) It is true that a delicate balance has to be maintained between the interest of the society
and protecting the liberty of an individual. As already discussed above, there are already
sufficient safeguards provided in the Code which duly protect the liberty of an individual in
case of registration of false FIR. At the same time, Section 154 was drafted keeping in mind
the interest of the victim and the society. Therefore, we are of the cogent view that mandatory
registration of FIRs under Section 154 of the Code will not be in contravention of Article 21 of
the Constitution as purported by various counsel.
11
11
Exceptions:
106) Although, we, in unequivocal terms, hold that Section 154 of the Code postulates the
mandatory registration of FIRs on receipt of all cognizable offence, yet, there may be instances
where preliminary inquiry may be required owing to the change in genesis and novelty of
crimes with the passage of time. One such instance is in the case of allegations relating to
medical negligence on the part of doctors. It will be unfair and inequitable to prosecute a
medical professional only on the basis of the allegations in the complaint.
107) In the context of medical negligence cases, in Jacob Mathew (supra), it was held by this
Court as under:
“51. We may not be understood as holding that doctors can never be prosecuted for an
offence of which rashness or negligence is an essential ingredient. All that we are doing is
to emphasise the need for care and caution in the interest of society; for, the service which
the medical profession renders to human beings is probably the noblest of all, and hence
there is a need for protecting doctors from frivolous or unjust prosecutions. Many a
complainant prefer recourse to criminal process as a tool for pressurising the medical
professional for extracting uncalled for or unjust compensation. Such malicious proceedings
have to be guarded against.
52. Statutory rules or executive instructions incorporating certain guidelines need to be
framed and issued by the Government of India and/or the State Governments in consultation
with the Medical Council of India. So long as it is not done, we propose to lay down certain
guidelines for the future which should govern the prosecution of doctors for offences of
which criminal rashness or criminal negligence is an ingredient. A private complaint may
not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence before the
court in the form of a credible opinion given by another competent doctor to support the
charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused doctor. The investigating officer
should, before proceeding against the doctor accused of rash or negligent act or omission,
obtain an independent and competent medical opinion preferably from a doctor in
government service, qualified in that branch of medical practice who can normally be
expected to give an impartial and unbiased opinion applying the Bolam9 test to the facts
collected in the investigation. A doctor accused of rashness or negligence, may not be
arrested in a routine manner (simply because a charge has been levelled against him). Unless
his arrest is necessary for furthering the investigation or for collecting evidence or unless
the investigating officer feels satisfied that the doctor proceeded against would not make
himself available to face the prosecution unless arrested, the arrest may be withheld.”
108) In the context of offences relating to corruption, this Court in P. Sirajuddin (supra)
expressed the need for a preliminary inquiry before proceeding against public servants.
109) Similarly, in Tapan Kumar Singh (supra), this Court has validated a preliminary inquiry
prior to registering an FIR only on the ground that at the time the first information is received,
the same does not disclose a cognizable offence.
12
110) Therefore, in view of various counter claims regarding registration or non-registration,
what is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission
of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if
no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered
immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for
the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But,
if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no
other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage
of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information
is genuine, whether the information is credible etc. These are the issues that have to be verified
during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is
merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable
offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found to be false, there is always an
option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR.
Conclusion/Directions:
111) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information
discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in
such a situation.
ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the
necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether
cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be
registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the
entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one
week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is
disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if
information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the
information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable
offence.
vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend
on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary
inquiry may be made are as under:
a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
b) Commercial offences
c) Medical negligence cases
d) Corruption cases
e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for
example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the
reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant
preliminary inquiry.
13
13
vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a
preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days.
The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information
received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences,
whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and
meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry
must also be reflected, as mentioned above.
112) With the above directions, we dispose of the reference made to us. List all the matters
before the appropriate Bench for disposal on merits.
14
Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh
CRL.M.P. NO.5029 OF 2014 IN WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.68 OF 2008
O R D E R
After hearing him and in the light of the grievance expressed in the present criminal
miscellaneous petition filed in the writ petition, we modify clause (vii) of paragraph
111 of our judgment dated 12th November, 2013, in the following manner:
“(vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the
complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it
should not exceed fifteen days generally and in exceptional cases, by giving adequate
reasons, six weeks time is provided. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must
be reflected in the General Diary entry.”
To this extent, clause (vii) of paragraph 111 of the judgment is modified. Criminal
miscellaneous petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
