Judgment Intelligence
Other- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 12 November 2013
- Bench
- Chief Justice P. Sathasivam and Justices B.S. Chauhan, Ranjana Prakash Desai, Ranjan Gogoi and S.A. Bobde (Constitution Bench)
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 2(g), 39, 41, 154, 156, 157, 438; Constitution of India — Article 21; Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946
The Constitution Bench answered the reference with these directions and directed that all the matters be listed before the appropriate Bench for disposal on merits (paras 111-112).
Key holdings
- Registration of an FIR is mandatory if the information discloses a cognizable offence; no preliminary inquiry is permissible then (para 111).
- A preliminary inquiry may only ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed, not verify whether the information is true (para 111).
- Illustrative categories for preliminary inquiry: matrimonial or family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption, and abnormal unexplained delay, such as over three months; it must not exceed seven days (para 111).
- If the inquiry closes the complaint, the informant must get a copy of the closure entry with brief reasons within a week; officers who fail to register FIRs must face action (para 111).
- All information about cognizable offences, and any decision to hold a preliminary inquiry, must be recorded in the General Diary (para 111).
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
- State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335
The legislature used the unqualified word "information" in Section 154(1); an FIR has to be entered in a book in the prescribed form.
- Ramesh Kumari vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2006) 2 SCC 677
That a police officer must register a case on a complaint of a cognizable offence is no longer res integra, having been settled in Bhajan Lal.
- Parkash Singh Badal vs. State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC 1
Every information relating to a cognizable offence given to an officer in charge of a police station must be entered in the prescribed book.
View all precedents (19)
- Lallan Chaudhary and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another (2006) 12 SCC 229
Section 154 casts a statutory duty on the police officer to register the case disclosed in the complaint and then investigate.
- Ram Lal Narang vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 2 SCC 322
Under the Code the police record the information about a cognizable offence and investigate without a court's order.
- Aleque Padamsee and Others vs. Union of India and Others (2007) 6 SCC 171
The police ought to register an FIR whenever facts show a cognizable offence; on failure, the Code's remedies under Sections 190 and 200 apply.
- Khub Chand vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 1074
The term "shall" in its ordinary significance is mandatory unless that leads to absurd or inconvenient consequences.
- M/s Hiralal Rattanlal vs. State of U.P. (1973) 1 SCC 216
The first rule of construction is literal construction; other rules are called in aid only when the legislative intent is not clear.
- Madhu Bala vs. Suresh Kumar (1997) 8 SCC 476
The FIR must be registered in the FIR Register; the substance is also entered in the general diary.
- Thulia Kali vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1972) 3 SCC 393
The FIR is a vital piece of evidence; prompt lodging obtains early information about the occurrence.
- Superintendent of Police, CBI vs. Tapan Kumar Singh (2003) 6 SCC 175
A GD entry may be treated as the first information where it discloses a cognizable offence; a preliminary inquiry was validated only because the information first received did not disclose one.
- Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2005) 6 SCC 1
Doctors should not be prosecuted for negligence merely on the allegations in a complaint; recognised as an instance where a preliminary inquiry may be required.
- P. Sirajuddin vs. State of Madras (1970) 1 SCC 595
Expressed the need for a preliminary inquiry before proceeding against public servants for corruption.
- Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 260
Arrest cannot be made by the police in a routine manner; registration of an FIR does not mean the accused must be arrested.
- State of Maharashtra vs. Sarangdharsingh Shivdassingh Chavan & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 577
An example of the police failing to register an FIR on information disclosing a cognizable offence.
- Sevi vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1981 Supp SCC 43
Cited to the Court in support of a discretion to hold a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR; one of the conflicting decisions that led to the reference.
- Shashikant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2007) 1 SCC 630
Cited to the Court in support of a discretion to hold a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR; one of the conflicting decisions that led to the reference.
- Rajinder Singh Katoch vs. Chandigarh Admn. (2007) 10 SCC 69
Cited to the Court in support of a discretion to hold a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR; one of the conflicting decisions that led to the reference.
- State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi (1964) 3 SCR 71
Cited to the Court in support of a discretion to hold a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR; one of the conflicting decisions that led to the reference.
