Summary of Recent judgment

Case: Lalita Kumari v Government of Uttar Pradesh



Date of Order / Judgment: 17th August, 2024

The Matter Heard by Bench: Justice P Sathasivam (C.J), Justice B.S. Chauhan, Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice S.A. Bobde.

Background

Lalita Kumari, the petitioner, challenged the refusal of the police to register a First Information Report (FIR) despite her complaint alleging a cognizable offense. The refusal to register the FIR led Lalita Kumari to approach the Supreme Court, seeking a declaration that the police are obligated to register an FIR upon receiving such a complaint.

Issues

  • 1. Whether the police are mandated to register an FIR upon receiving a complaint about a cognizable offense under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973.
  • 2. Whether obligatory registration of FIR under Section 154, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, without preliminary inquiry violates the right to life of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution?
  • 3. Whether a preliminary inquiry can be conducted before registering an FIR in cases involving cognizable offenses.

Observations :

The Supreme Court observed that:

  • • Section 154 of the CrPC, 1973, requires that the police must register an FIR when a cognizable offense is reported. A cognizable offense is one for which the police have the authority to arrest without a warrant and to start an investigation with or without the permission of a court.
  • • Preliminary inquiries should not be used to avoid the registration of an FIR. They are generally intended for cases where the information received is unclear or does not immediately establish a cognizable offense.
  • • The Court further noted that Section 154(1) uses the expression ‘information’ unlike Section 41 which uses expressions such as ‘credible information’ or ‘reasonable complaint’. Therefore, the Court held that the absence of prefixes such as ‘reasonable’ or ‘credible’ in Section 154(1) denotes that the police officer need not necessarily get into the rationality or accuracy of the information received while registering the FIR and hence cannot refuse for registration of FIR on those grounds.

Decision:

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Lalita Kumari, stating that:

  • • The police are required to register an FIR as soon as they receive information about a cognizable offense. Failure to do so is considered a violation of legal and constitutional obligations and shall invite contempt.
  • • The Court ruled that conducting an investigation after registration of FIR under Section 154(1) of CrPC is the “procedure established by law” and hence is in accordance with Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court noted that if the FIR is filed first and the inquiry is carried out in compliance with the law, the accused’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution are safeguarded.
  • • Although the Court ruled that the registration of FIR under Section 154(1) is a mandatory procedure that has to be followed by the police officer upon the receipt of any information disclosing the commission of any cognizable offences, it also noted that there are certain instances where a preliminary enquiry might be necessary. Some of the exceptions to the ruling of mandatory registration of FIR are as follows.
    • o Medical Negligence
    • o Matrimonial Cases
    • o Corruption cases
    • o Commercial offences
    • o Cases of abnormal delay in reporting

With the enactment of the new Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, there have been some changes to the legal framework established by the CrPC.

Under the BNSS:

  • • There is a scope for preliminary inquiries in certain situations before an FIR is registered, which directly modifies the effect of the Lalita Kumari judgment.
  • • The revised legislation provides more flexibility regarding the preliminary inquiry process, potentially allowing police to assess the validity of a complaint before registering an FIR. This adjustment tweaks the Supreme Court's ruling by permitting some pre-FIR scrutiny in specific cases, thereby altering the procedural landscape for handling complaints about cognizable offenses.