Counsel seeks permission to approach the dias

May it please the court, This is the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent along with my
co council in the case of Lalitakumari v. Government of uttar pradesh.

Counsel seeks permission to address the bench as your lordship.

If your Lordship is well versed with the facts of the present case, then may the counsel seek
permission to proceed with the issue of the case.
There are three main issues in the case
ISSUE 1
Whether a police officer is bound to register an FIR upon receiving any information relating to
the commission of a cognizable offence under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973?
ISSUE 2
Whether the police officer has the power to conduct a preliminary inquiry in order to test the
veracity of such information before registering the same?
ISSUE 3
Whether mandatory registration of FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 without preliminary inquiry violate the right to life of the accused under Article 21 of the
Constitution?
Here issue number 1and half of the issue 2 will be dealt by me and rest of the issues will be dealt
by my co counsel.
Counsel seeks permission to proceed with the arguments
Issue number 1: Whether a police officer is bound to register an FIR upon receiving any
information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence under section 154 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973?
1)First Information Report (FIR) is not defined anywhere in the Code of Criminal Procedure
code. It is the earliest report that was submitted to the police officer with a view to his action and
on the basis of which investigation begins. The Supreme Court of India in Ravi Kumar v State of
Punjab defined FIR as a report giving details about the commission of the cognizable crime.
It can be made by the complaint or any other person having knowledge about the commission
of such offence. The information received by the police officer has to be recorded in the manner
provided in section 154 of CrPC

2) There are various Supreme Court decisions like P. Sirajuddin vs. State of Madras , Sevi vs.
State of Tamil Nadu , Shashikant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation , and Rajinder Singh
Katoch vs.Chandigarh administration which state that police is not obliged to file a FIR as soon
as he receives the information of the commission of a cognisable offence. Police officer is given
the discretion to conduct preliminary enquiry and confirm the commission of the cognisable
offence.
3)FIR is not a condition precedent for setting criminal investigation in motion. An example is
medical negligence. Failure to file a FIR does not result in crime going unnoticed or unpunished.
If he is deprived of such power of preliminary enquiry, then the process will suffer from the
arbitrariness and unreasonability.
4)The conviction rate in India is very low which indicates towards the high number of fake cases
filed in India. This leads to unnecessary harassment of innocent person because of fake
complainants. Hence preliminary inquiry after receiving information should precede the
registration of FIR.
5)In a country like India where the police and judiciary is overburdened with work, if we make
registration of FIR mandatory then it will deny justice to those against whom actually a serious
and heinous crime is committed. It is time consuming as there are so many fake cases which are
registered. These fake cases affect the accused severely as his life socially and mentally gets
completely changed. If an innocent person is wrongly implicated, he suffers not just from loss of
credibility but also from mental stress and his personal freedom is seriously undermined.
6) A balance needs to be drawn between the rights of victim and accused. FIR must not be made
mandatory as it increases the likelihood of its misuse. On the other hand, there should be some
guidelines for police officers to finish the preliminary enquiry.
7)There should be a set timeline to finish the preliminary enquiry. The police must finish the
preliminary enquiry within that time frame. After the preliminary enquiry, if the police is
satisfied that case is genuine and actually a cognisable offence took place, the police officer must
file the FIR. A copy of the pre-investigation report should be forwarded to the complainant..
8) At present, police officers have such discretion in matrimonial, commercial, medical
negligence and corruption-related offences. The crime manual of CBI and the police rules
prevailing in the States of Punjab, Rajasthan, U.P., Madhya Pradesh, Kolkata, Bombay, etc., lay
down provisions regarding conducting an inquiry before registering an FIR. Thereby,holding a
preliminary enquiry before registering FIR is legitimate in the eyes of the law.
9)The learned counsel also argued that a statute should not be read in such a way as to result in a
lack of discretion on the part of the police officer, particularly in Fake cases where the
registration of the FIR leads to an empty formality.
10)Section 154(1) of the Code mandates compulsory registration of FIR. The counsel also
highlighted various safeguards inbuilt in the Code for lodging of false FIRs and also pointed out
that the only exception relates to cases arising under the Prevention of Corruption Act as, in
those cases, sanction is necessary before taking cognizance by the Magistrates and the public
servants are accorded some kind of protection so that vexatious case cannot be filed to harass
them.
11) 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.
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. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must
be registered.
12) there are a number of cases which exhibit that there are instances where the power of the
police to register an FIR and initiate an investigation thereto are misused where a cognizable
offence is not made out from the contents of the complaint. A significant case in this context is
the case of Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand wherein this Court has expressed its anxiety over
misuse of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with respect to which a large number of
frivolous reports were lodged. This Court expressed its desire that the legislature must take into
consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities to make necessary changes
in law.
13) The word “shall” doesn’t necessarily mean the absence of discretion in every case on
receiving information on the commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 of the Code,
an investigating officer has the power to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registration of FIR.
14) Conclusively ,while FIR registration should not be obligatory, guidelines and a specific
timeframe for preliminary inquiries are recommended. This approach ensures a reasonable and
efficient process, conforming to the spirit of Article 21, and guards against potential misuse.
If your lordship are satisfied ,may I proceed with second issue
2nd issue "Whether the police officer has the power to conduct a preliminary inquiry in order to
test the veracity of such information before registering the same"?

1)It is humbly submitted that an officer in charge of a police station has the discretion in
appropriate cases to hold a preliminary enquiry in relation to the veracity or otherwise of the
accusation made in the complaint. The crime manual of CBI contains preliminary enquiry
before registering the information. Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that
any police officer in charge of a police station may without the order of magistrate investigate
any cognizable case. Section 157 gives the police officer the power on receiving information
of an offence to enquire the facts and circumstances of the case.

2) A preliminary enquiry is required because all the time the information may not be reasonable
or credible. Many times vexatious cases are filed to harass a person. In order to prevent the
unnecessary harassment of an innocent person by making baseless complaints it is desirable
that a preliminary enquiry into the allegations should be proceeded with. In the case of
Bhagwant Kishore Joshi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, it was observed that an investigating
officer on receiving information of commissioner of cognizable offence has the power to
conduct preliminary enquiry before registration of FIR.

3)The police rules in the States of Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya pradesh, West
Bengal and Maharashtra provides for conducting an enquiry before registering FIR.

4)preliminary enquiry by the police will eliminate the misuse of the process
because if FIR is registered without knowing the truth it will adversely effect the future of the
person against whom it is registered such as applying for a job or passport etc.If the police
officer has doubt about the correctness or credibility of the information he should have the
discretion of holding the preliminary enquiry and thereafter if he is satisfied that there is a
prima facie case for investigation then register the crime.
5)In T. Sirajudheen v. State of Madras it was observed that a preliminary enquiry is required
before prosecuting public servants for misconduct. It was further held that a preliminary
enquiry must be conducted before registering a crime.
6)Holding a preliminary enquiry into the matter is necessary to ensure fairness in the procedure.
If a police officer is barred from conducting a preliminary enquiry the procedure will become
arbitrary and unreasonable. Also it will turn the investigation into unfair, illegal, mollified
and will result in grave prejudice to the right of the accused. The immediate registration of
FIR without testing the veracity of the complaint will lead scope for manipulation of the
system which will effect the right of the accused to have a fair trial.
7)The law commission its 230th report stressed upon the need of preliminary enquiry.
Preliminary enquiry will act as an extremely valuable safeguard against the excessive
mollified and illegal use of the procedure by giving baseless allegations against the accused.
In SEBI v. State of Tamilnadu, the Government of Tamilnadu accepted a preliminary enquiry
report.
8)Taking criminal action against a person without knowing the correctness or truth is violative
of the rule of law and justice to the accused. It leads to manipulation in criminal cases. If
there is no preliminary enquiry a person may lodged a report with exaggerated accounts of
stories to take his vengeance against a person. In the case of Rajeendra Singh Khatok v.
Chandigarh Administration, the Supreme Court ruled that police can conduct preliminary
enquiry before registering an FIR. In this case the authorities investigated the matter. The
superintendent of police also made an enquiry to find the truth of the complaint from
neighbours.
9)Deny a person his innocence is a serious matter. There must be some reasonable justification
in the opinion of the officer that registration is necessary. In Tapan Kumar Singh v. CBI, this
court have validated preliminary enquiry prior to registering an FIR. When an innocent
person is falsely implicated he not only suffers from loss of reputation but also from
mentaltension. Thus, it is most humbly submitted that the police has the discretion to conduct a
preliminary enquiry in order to test the veracity of the information before registering it.If your
lordship are satisfied ,my co_ counsel will be dealing with the further issues.