Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P.: AIR 2012 SC 1515

CASE ANALYSIS
Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P.

AIR 2012 SC 1515
RASHI PANDIT1
FACTS:
Bhola Kumar, father of the petitioner filed a missing report of minor daughter, Lalita Kumari. A
written report against some private suspects was also lodged. No steps were taken either for
apprehending the accused or for the recovery of the minor girl child. It was also alleged by Bhola
that the police officer asked for money to initiate investigation. A writ petition under Art. 32
was filed. The court in his order dated 14.7.2008 expressed grave anguish on non-registration of
the FIR even in the case of cognizable offence.
ISSUE(S):
 Whether a Police officer is bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon
receiving any information related to commission of cognizable offence under Section 154
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
 Whether a Police officer has the power to conduct a “preliminary inquiry” in order to test
the veracity of such information before registering the same?
ARGUMENTS:
Petitioner:
o The counsel for petitioner submitted that it is been iterated by the apex court time to time
that when a cognizable offence is disclosed, the police officials are bound to register the
same and in case it is not done, directions to perform the same should be given by the
higher authority.
o Section 156(3) of the code of criminal procedure contemplates the registration before
investigation into the case.
1
Semester III, B.A. L.L.B (hons.), National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi
o The use of the word “shall” in the section 154 is indicative of the mandatory nature of
the registration of FIR.
o The concept of preliminary investigation is alien to the criminal law regime except in the
prevention of corruption act and in respect of the offence under which it was to be
investigated by the CBI.
Respondent:
o The counsel on behalf of the respondent submitted that the registration of an FIR being
an administrative act which requires the application of mind, scrutiny and verification of
the facts as no administrative act can ever be a mechanical one. This is the requirement of
law
o The word “shall” used in the statue does not always mean absence of any discretion in
the matter. In fake case, the FIR would become a useless lumber and a dead letter.
o If an innocent person is falsely implicated, he not only suffers from loss of reputation but
also suffers mental tension and his personal liberty is seriously impaired.
HELD:
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.
vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will
depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which
preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
b) Commercial offences
c) Medical negligence cases
d) Corruption cases
e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for
example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily
explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may
warrant preliminary inquiry.
vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a
preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed
7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General
Diary entry.
viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information
received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable
offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be
mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a
preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.

Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P.: AIR 2012 SC 1515

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P.: AIR 2012 SC 1515

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P.: AIR 2012 SC 1515

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE ANALYSIS

Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P.

You might also like