'Lalita Kumari' Judgment Doesn't Create Absolute Rule That Preliminary Enquiry Is Necessary In Every Case Before FIR : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed in a recent judgment that the landmark decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors(2014) "does not create an absolute rule that a preliminary inquiry must be conducted in every case before the registration of an FIR."

The Court added that the Lalita Kumari decision reaffirmed "the settled principle that the police authorities are obligated to register an FIR when the information received prima facie discloses a cognizable offence."

"The scope of a preliminary inquiry, as clarified in the said judgment, is limited to situations where the information received does not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence but requires verification. However, in cases where the information clearly discloses a cognizable offence, the police have no discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR," the Court added.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice PB Varale made these observations while rejecting the bail plea of former Gujarat IAS officer Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma in connection to a 2023 illegal land allotment case lodged at Bhuj in Kutch.

The Court rejected Sharma's plea that FIRs cannot be registered against him without a mandatory preliminary enquiry.

"..this Court cannot issue a blanket direction restraining the registration of FIRs against the appellant or mandating a preliminary inquiry in all future cases involving him. Such a direction would not only be contrary to the statutory framework of the CrPC but would also amount to judicial overreach. As rightly observed by the High Court, courts cannot rewrite statutory provisions or introduce additional procedural safeguards that are not contemplated by law."

Sharma had approached the Gujarat High Court alleging that after securing bail in connection with corruption allegations and misusing his official capacity, successive FIRs were filed against him with the intention to continue him incarcerated. He stated that as per the landmark Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors(2014), the police have to first conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR. However, the Gujarat High Court relying on the same judgment held that the police is in fact obligated to register an FIR where the allegations disclose a commission of cognisable offence. Against this order, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.

A bench while upholding the order of the High Court, held that the Lalita Kumari judgment has settled the position of law which is that a registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the information discloses the commission of a cognisable offence. That is, the police have no discretion in such cases.

It added that as for the preliminary inquiry, the scope is limited to situations where the information does not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence. Therefore, the information requires verification through the said inquiry.

"In the present case, the allegations against the appellant pertain to the abuse of official position and corrupt practices while holding public office. Such allegations fall squarely within the category of cognizable offences, and there exists no legal requirement for a preliminary inquiry before the registration of an FIR in such cases. The appellant's contention that successive FIRs have been registered against him with an ulterior motive is a matter that can be examined during the course of investigation and trial. The appellant has adequate remedies under the law, including the right to seek quashing of frivolous FIRs under Section 482 CrPC, the right to apply for bail, and the right to challenge any illegal actions of the investigating authorities before the appropriate forum."

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the petitioner. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta appeared for the State.

Case Details: PRADEEP NIRANKARNATH SHARMA v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 315

Click Here To Read Order