Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Richard Yimto – Appellant
Versus
State Of Nagaland Represented By The Chief Secretary – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.
1. Heard Mr. P. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Nagaland.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Richard Yimto, IPS praying for issuance of Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ for directing the State authorities to register an FIR in respect of complaint dated 03.08.2018 filed by one Lichathong Lotha, UBSI, Commander, Narcotic Cell Check Point, Khuzama, Nagaland regarding recovery of illegal drugs. The petitioner has also prayed for directing the respondent No. 1 i.e., the State of Nagaland to transfer the investigation of the case arising out of complaint dated 03.08.2018 to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
3. The facts relevant for considerations of instant writ petition, in brief, are as follows:-
The court affirmed that senior officials cannot obstruct FIR registration and must adhere to legal protocols, emphasizing accountability in law enforcement.
The court affirmed that a senior officer cannot avoid accountability for procedural lapses and that the transfer of investigation to the CBI is not warranted without exceptional circumstances.
The registration of an FIR is mandatory if it discloses a cognizable offence, and the police cannot conduct a preliminary inquiry at their discretion.
The court emphasized that FIR registration is mandatory for cognizable offences, rejecting locus standi as a barrier to filing complaints.
The judgment emphasizes the need for fair investigation and clarifies the exceptional circumstances for transferring investigation to the CBI.
The court established that the right to a fair investigation is fundamental, and failure by the police to uphold this right necessitates judicial intervention.
The accused has no right to a hearing before the registration of an FIR, and anyone can initiate criminal proceedings unless explicitly barred by law.
The police are mandated to register an FIR when a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, and the credibility of the information is not a prerequisite for such registration.
The accused has no right to dictate the investigating agency or method of investigation, and the plea of alibi must be substantiated with cogent evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article