Introduction
One of the most fundamental aspects of the criminal justice system is the swift and proper registration of a First Information Report (FIR) when a cognizable offence is alleged. The landmark judgment in Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [(2014) 2 SCC 1] by a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down unambiguous guidelines regarding this duty of the police.
This case addressed a pressing issue — whether the police can delay FIR registration by first conducting a preliminary inquiry, even when the information discloses a cognizable offence. The Court’s verdict resolved conflicting judicial opinions and reinforced the rights of complainants under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
Background of the Case
Facts of the Case
- The petitioner, Lalita Kumari, a minor girl, was allegedly kidnapped.
- Her father filed a written complaint with the local police station, providing information about the cognizable offence.
- The police, however, did not register an FIR, nor did they initiate any investigation.
- Aggrieved by this inaction, the petitioner approached the High Court, and ultimately the matter reached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition.
Legal Issue Before the Supreme Court
The central legal issue was:
“Whether a police officer is bound to register an FIR upon receiving information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154(1) CrPC, or whether he has the discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering the FIR?”
This question had led to conflicting interpretations in various High Courts and Supreme Court benches over the years.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling
After examining the legislative intent of Section 154 CrPC, constitutional provisions on protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and earlier judgments, the Constitution Bench laid down several clear principles:
1. Mandatory Registration of FIR in Cognizable Offences
The Court unequivocally held that registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154(1) CrPC if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The police officer concerned has no discretion in this regard.
Rationale:
- Cognizable offences involve serious crimes where immediate police action is necessary.
- Any delay in FIR registration could impede timely investigation, collection of evidence, and protection of the victim’s rights.
2. No Preliminary Inquiry in Cognizable Cases
The Court ruled that no preliminary inquiry is permissible in cases where information discloses a cognizable offence. The police officer must register the FIR immediately upon receiving such information.
However, there are certain exceptional cases where a preliminary inquiry is permitted before registration of an FIR.
3. Categories Where Preliminary Inquiry May Be Permissible
The Court categorized specific cases where a preliminary inquiry might be justified before FIR registration:
- Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
- Commercial offences
- Medical negligence cases
- Corruption cases
- Cases where there’s an abnormal delay in initiating criminal prosecution
Note: Even in these cases, the inquiry must be time-bound and completed within 7 days.
4. Proper Documentation and Accountability
In cases where a preliminary inquiry is conducted:
- The police must record the reasons for conducting such inquiry in the Daily Diary/General Diary.
- The inquiry must be completed expeditiously (preferably within 7 days).
- After inquiry, if a cognizable offence is made out, FIR must be registered immediately.
5. Consequences of Refusal or Delay in Registering FIR
The Court emphasized that any deliberate refusal to register an FIR amounts to:
- Dereliction of duty
- Actionable misconduct under service rules
- Violation of statutory rights of the complainant
The Court made it clear that victims can approach higher police authorities, Magistrates under Section 156(3) CrPC, or even the High Court for appropriate remedies if police fail to perform this statutory duty.
Guidelines Issued by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court issued structured guidelines for police authorities:
- Immediate FIR registration if information discloses a cognizable offence.
- Preliminary inquiry limited to specific exceptional categories only.
- Preliminary inquiry (if conducted) must be completed within 7 days.
- Reasons for preliminary inquiry must be recorded in the Daily Diary.
- Action to be taken based on the outcome of the preliminary inquiry — if a cognizable offence is made out, FIR must follow.
Legal and Practical Implications
For Complainants:
- Right to insist on FIR registration if reporting a cognizable offence.
- In case of police refusal, complainants can:
- Approach senior police officers.
- File a private complaint before a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC.
- Move the High Court under Article 226 for writ of mandamus.
For Police Authorities:
- No discretion in registering an FIR in cognizable cases.
- Mandatory adherence to the Supreme Court’s guidelines.
- Any deviation may invite departmental and legal consequences.
Conclusion
The Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. judgment fortified the rights of citizens and victims by ensuring prompt police action upon receipt of information about a cognizable offence. It removed ambiguity around police discretion and struck a balance between preventing misuse of criminal law and protecting the complainant’s right to access justice.
This case remains a cornerstone precedent in the criminal procedural law of India, ensuring that the criminal law machinery moves swiftly and effectively to protect victims and punish offenders.
Citation:
For a detailed understanding, you can refer to the full judgment here: Lalita Kumari vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2013)
Important: Kindly Refer New Corresponding Sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, (BNS); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, (BNSS); & Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, (BSA) for IPC; CrPC & IEA used in the article.
Disclaimer: This information is intended for general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult with a qualified lawyer for personalized advice specific to your situation.
The judgment remains a cornerstone in protecting the rights of victims and streamlining police accountability.
Advocate J.S. Rohilla (Civil & Criminal Lawyer in Indore)
Contact: 88271 22304