Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.

Why this case matters

Can a police officer who is told of a cognizable offence check the story first, or must an FIR be registered at once? Earlier benches of the Supreme Court had answered that question in different ways. In Lalita Kumari a Constitution Bench of five judges settled it: if the information discloses a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered, and a preliminary inquiry is allowed only to find out whether a cognizable offence is disclosed at all.

The facts

The writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Lalita Kumari, a minor, through her father, who sought a writ of habeas corpus after she was kidnapped. On 11 May 2008 he gave a written report at the police station, but the officer in charge took no action. An FIR was registered only after the Superintendent of Police was approached, and even then, the petition said, no steps were taken to arrest the accused or recover the girl.

A two-judge bench, noticing that police officers across the country registered FIRs in different ways, issued notice to the Union, the States and Union Territories. Because earlier two-judge decisions of the Court pointed in different directions, the bench referred the question to a larger bench in 2008. A three-judge bench, hearing the Union, the States and Union Territories, then asked for a Constitution Bench in 2012.

The question before the Court

Is a police officer bound to register an FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on receiving information about a cognizable offence, or may the officer first hold a “preliminary inquiry” to test whether the information is true?

What the Court said

The Court explained what is lost when FIRs are not registered:

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.

Para 95 · [2013] 14 S.C.R. 794 · Open at this page

It answered the fear that a mandatory FIR would lead to arbitrary arrests:

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.

Para 98 · [2013] 14 S.C.R. 794 · Open at this page

And it said what the officer may and may not look at when the information arrives:

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.

Para 110 · [2013] 14 S.C.R. 800 · Open at this page

The directions

Paragraph 111 sets out the Court’s conclusions. The first five, in its own words:

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.

Para 111 · [2013] 14 S.C.R. 800–801 · Open at this page

Directions (vi) to (viii) list the kinds of cases in which a preliminary inquiry may be made, limit it to seven days, and require every piece of information about a cognizable offence to be entered in the General Diary; see the FAQs below.

What the Court decided

The Court answered the reference with the directions in paragraph 111 and listed all the matters before the appropriate bench for disposal on their merits.

Why it still matters

Lalita Kumari is the starting point whenever the police refuse or delay an FIR. The Supreme Court has named it in later cases such as Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020) and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022); the case map below shows some of them. Since 1 July 2024, the FIR provision it interprets, Section 154 CrPC, has been replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), so check the new section, and any change it makes to preliminary inquiries, when you rely on the judgment today.

How lawyers use it

• When the police refuse to register an FIR for information that discloses a cognizable offence.
• To challenge a “preliminary inquiry” that goes into whether the complaint is true, rather than whether it discloses a cognizable offence.
• To insist on the seven-day limit and the General Diary entry for any preliminary inquiry.
• For the accused in matrimonial, commercial, medical negligence and corruption cases, and cases of long delay, where the Court allowed a preliminary inquiry.