SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1313 Of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 3154 of 2024)
Decided On : 17-03-2025
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 154 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 173] – FIR – Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 Cr.P.C. if information discloses commission of a cognizable offence – Scope of a preliminary inquiry is limited to situations where information received does not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence but requires verification – However, in cases where information clearly discloses a cognizable offence, Police have no discretion to conduct preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR – There is no absolute rule that preliminary inquiry must be conducted in every case before registration of FIR – Police authorities are obligated to register FIR when information received prima facie discloses a cognizable offence. (Paras 11 and 12)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 154, 439 and 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 173, 483 and 528] – FIR – Alleged misuse of official position and corrupt practices while holding public office – Such allegations fall squarely within category of cognizable offences and there exists no legal requirement for a preliminary inquiry before registration of FIR in such cases – Appellant’s contention that successive FIRs have been registered against him with an ulterior motive is a matter that can be examined during course of investigation and trial – Appellant has adequate remedies under law, including right to seek quashing of frivolous FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C., right to apply for bail and right to challenge any illegal actions of investigating authorities before appropriate forum – Supreme cannot issue a blanket direction restraining registration of FIRs against appellant or mandating preliminary inquiry in all future cases involving him – Such a direction would not only be contrary to statutory framework of Cr.P.C. but would also amount to judicial overreach – Courts cannot rewrite statutory provisions or introduce additional procedural safeguards that are not contemplated by law – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 13, 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal has been filed challenging judgment and order dated 31.01.2024 passed by High Court of Gujarat in R/Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 1321 of 2024, whereby High Court dismissed appellant’s plea seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent authorities to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering any First Information Report against him for acts performed in his official capacity.
Findings of Court:
This order shall not preclude appellant from availing any other remedies available to him under law in respect of pending FIRs or future proceedings.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC if the information discloses a cognizable offence; no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such cases. (!) (!) - A preliminary inquiry is limited to situations where information does not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence and requires verification; if a cognizable offence is clearly disclosed, police have no discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR. (!) - Lalita Kumari acknowledges a need for preliminary inquiry in limited categories (e.g., medical negligence) but does not create an absolute rule requiring pre-FIR inquiry in all cases; authorities may examine motive and conduct during investigation/trial. (!) (!) - Courts cannot issue blanket directions to require a preliminary inquiry for all future cases involving a particular accused; such directions would exceed statutory provisions. (!) (!) - The appellant can pursue remedies such as quashing of frivolous FIRs under Section 482 CrPC, bail, and challenge of illegal actions before appropriate forums; High Court’s order does not preclude these remedies. (!) (!) (!) - The appeal was dismissed, confirming that successive FIRs can be registered where cognizable offences are disclosed, and a blanket pre-FIR inquiry is not mandated. (!) - Scope of investigation/Trial can address alleged ulterior motives or abuse of power; no need for pre-FIR inquiry. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
(Vikram Nath, J.)
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in R/Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 1321 of 2024, whereby the High Court dismissed the appellant’s plea seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering any First Information Report1[FIR] against him for acts performed in his official capacity.
3. The facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellant is a retired Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer who served in various administrative capacities, including as the Collector of Kachchh District, Gujarat, between 2003 and 2006. Several FIRs have been registered against the appellant in connection with alleged irregularities in land allotment orders passed during his tenure as the Collector. The allegations against the appellant primarily pertain to abuse of official position, corrupt practices, and financial irregularities in the allotment of government land. It is pertinent to note that the first FIR in this regard was registered in 2010, followed by successive FIRs lodged against the appellant. The appellant has remained in judicial custody over the course of this period in connection with these cases, and trials are ongoing before competent Courts.
4. Aggrieved by the registration of multiple FIRs, the appellant approached the High Court of Gujarat by way of a writ petition under Articles 14, 20, 21, 22, and 226 of the Constitution of India. The primary relief sought in the writ petition was for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the respondent authorities to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering any further FIRs against him. The appellant contended that his Fundamental Rights, particularly his right to liberty under Article 21, were being violated due to successive and arbitrary registration of criminal cases without conducting a preliminary inquiry. He further contended that these FIRs were lodged with an ulterior motive to harass him and prevent him from effectively defending himself in the pending cases. In support of his submissions, the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1 to argue that the registration of an FIR should be preceded by a preliminary inquiry in cases involving allegations of abuse of official position.
5. The State of Gujarat, opposing the petition, argued before the High Court that the relief sought by the appellant was legally untenable. It was contended that under the settled position of law, once information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence is received, the police authorities are duty- bound to register an FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.3[CrPC]. The State further argued that granting the appellant’s request for a mandatory preliminary inquiry would amount to granting him a blanket protection against investigation, which is impermissible under law. The State also submitted that the appellant’s reliance on Lalita Kumari (supra) was misplaced, as the judgment itself clarified that preliminary inquiry is required only in limited categories of cases, such as family disputes, commercial matters, and medical negligence cases, and not where clear allegations of cognizable offences exist.
6. The High Court, after hearing both parties, dismissed the appellant’s writ petition. The High Court held that once a cognizable offence is disclosed in the complaint, the police authorities are under a statutory obligation to register an FIR and conduct an investigation. Relying on the principles laid down in Lalita Kumari (supra), the High Court observed that a preliminary inquiry is warranted only in cases where there is doubt as to whether a cognizable offence is disclosed. However, in the present
(1) FIR – There is no absolute rule that preliminary inquiry must be conducted in every case before registration of FIR – Police authorities are obligated to register FIR when information received pr....
(1) Alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction or inherent jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C.(2) Genuineness or....
The judgment emphasizes the mandatory registration of FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C and the need for preliminary inquiry in certain cases, while highlighting the importance of exhausting alternativ....
Preliminary inquiry is not mandatory for FIR registration in corruption cases if the information discloses a cognizable offence.
A preliminary inquiry is not mandatory before registering an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act if a prima facie case exists based on a detailed source information report.
FIR – Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. if information discloses commission of cognizable offence.
The High Court does not entertain a writ petition to compel FIR registration when alternative remedies under the Criminal Procedure Code are available, reinforcing the requirement for exhaustion of s....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.