# · LALITA KUMARI · v. GOVT. OF U.P. AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2013] 14 S.C.R. 713
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-11-12
- **Bench:** P. Sathasivam, Dr. B.S. Chauhan, Ranjana Prakash Desai, RANJAN GOGOi, S.A. Bobde
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/lalita-kumari-v-govt-of-u-p-and-ors-29183
- **Pages:** 90

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 154 - FIR - Registration of - Whether mandatory -
Or requires the police to conduct preliminary inquiry to test
the veracity of such information before registering it - Held:
A
B
c
The condition sine qua non for.registering FIR is that there
0
must be information and the information discloses
commission of cognizable offence - The reasonableness or
credibility of information is not a condition precedent for the
registration of FIR - The provision u/s. 154 is mandatory and
therefore it is mandatory for the police officer to register FIR
E
on the basis of information disclosing cognizable offence -
Registration of the FIR is not in contravention of Art. 21 of the
Constitution - However, there may be instances where
preliminary inquiry may be necessary before registration of
FIR e.g. matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, medical
negligence cases, corruption cases etc. - However, such
inquiry would be only to ascertain as to whether the
information reveals any cognizable offence - Constitution of
India, 1950 - Article 21.
F
ss.39 and 154(1) - Mandate u/s. 39 to inform about G
commission of an offence - Implication of - Held: It would be
incongruous to suggest that u/s. 39 it is duty of every citizen
to inform about commission of an offence, but it is not
713
H
714
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 14 S.C.R.
A obligatory for the Officer incharge of the Police Station to
register the report uls. 154.
s .. 154, 4(2) and 5 - Registration of FIR - Rules in CBI
Crime Manual, regarding preliminary inquiry - Applicability
8
of - To s. 154 - The concept of holding preliminary inquiry
provided in CBI Crime Manual cannot be imported into the
scheme of Cr. P. C. - CBI Crime Manual is not a statute,
enacted by legislature but only a set of administrative orders
and hence cannot supersede Cr.P.C. - Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act, 1946.
c
Penal Code, 1860- s.166A (as inserted by Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 2013) - Punishment for non-registration of
FIR for the offences specified in the provision - Implication
of - Held: The provision under s. 166A does not imply that the
o registration of FIR is not compulsory for the offences other
than those specified in s. 166A - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - s.154.
Constitution of India, 1950:
E
Art.254(1), Seventh Schedule, Concurrent List Entry 2
and State List Entry 2 - Inconsistency between Laws enacted
under Concurrent List and State List - Held: In case of
inconsistency, law enacted under Concurrent List will prevail
over the law enacted under State List - Hence, provisions of
F
Code of Criminal Procedure (enacted under Entry 2 of
Concurrent List) would prevail over the provisions of Police
Act and the provisions of Police Act (enacted under State List)
would be void to the extent of repugnancy- Therefore, in case
of inconsistency between s. 154 Cr.P. C. and s. 44 of Police
G Act, s. 154 will prevail and s.44 (or similar provisions) shall be
void to the extent of repugnancy - Police Act, 1861 - s.44.
Art.21 - Right to life -
Whether Violated, if FIR is
registered without holding preliminary inquiry -
Held:
H Registration of FIR uls. 154 Cr. P. C. is the 'procedure
LALITA KUMARI v. GOVT. OF U.P.
715
established by law' and thus is in conformity with Art.21 -
A
Hence registration of FIR as per the provisions of law, does
not violate rights guaranteed under Art. 21.
Investigation - Initiation of - By Police - Held: Police is
not liable to launch investigation in evey FIR which is
B
mandatorily registered uls. 154 Cr.P. C. - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - ss.154 and 157.
Police - Police records - FIR Books and General Diary!
Daily Diary/Station Diary - Distinction between - Discussed.
Interpretation of Statutes - Rule of interpretation - Literal
rule of interpretation - Application of - For interpretation of s.
154 Cr.P.C.
c
Maxim - 'unius est exclusion alterius' - Applicability of -
0
For interpretation of s. 154 Cr.P.C ..
Words and Phrases -
Inquir

## Text

_Characters 0–39,890 of 173,663. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39890 for what follows._

[2013] 14 S.C.R. 713
· LALITA KUMARI ·
v.
GOVT. OF U.P. AND ORS.
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68 of 2008 etc.)
NOVEMBER 12, 2013
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, RANJANA
PRAKASH DESAI, RANJAN GOGOi AND
S.A. BOBDE, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 154 - FIR - Registration of - Whether mandatory -
Or requires the police to conduct preliminary inquiry to test
the veracity of such information before registering it - Held:
A
B
c
The condition sine qua non for.registering FIR is that there
0
must be information and the information discloses
commission of cognizable offence - The reasonableness or
credibility of information is not a condition precedent for the
registration of FIR - The provision u/s. 154 is mandatory and
therefore it is mandatory for the police officer to register FIR
E
on the basis of information disclosing cognizable offence -
Registration of the FIR is not in contravention of Art. 21 of the
Constitution - However, there may be instances where
preliminary inquiry may be necessary before registration of
FIR e.g. matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, medical
negligence cases, corruption cases etc. - However, such
inquiry would be only to ascertain as to whether the
information reveals any cognizable offence - Constitution of
India, 1950 - Article 21.
F
ss.39 and 154(1) - Mandate u/s. 39 to inform about G
commission of an offence - Implication of - Held: It would be
incongruous to suggest that u/s. 39 it is duty of every citizen
to inform about commission of an offence, but it is not
713
H
714
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 14 S.C.R.
A obligatory for the Officer incharge of the Police Station to
register the report uls. 154.
s .. 154, 4(2) and 5 - Registration of FIR - Rules in CBI
Crime Manual, regarding preliminary inquiry - Applicability
8
of - To s. 154 - The concept of holding preliminary inquiry
provided in CBI Crime Manual cannot be imported into the
scheme of Cr. P. C. - CBI Crime Manual is not a statute,
enacted by legislature but only a set of administrative orders
and hence cannot supersede Cr.P.C. - Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act, 1946.
c
Penal Code, 1860- s.166A (as inserted by Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 2013) - Punishment for non-registration of
FIR for the offences specified in the provision - Implication
of - Held: The provision under s. 166A does not imply that the
o registration of FIR is not compulsory for the offences other
than those specified in s. 166A - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - s.154.
Constitution of India, 1950:
E
Art.254(1), Seventh Schedule, Concurrent List Entry 2
and State List Entry 2 - Inconsistency between Laws enacted
under Concurrent List and State List - Held: In case of
inconsistency, law enacted under Concurrent List will prevail
over the law enacted under State List - Hence, provisions of
F
Code of Criminal Procedure (enacted under Entry 2 of
Concurrent List) would prevail over the provisions of Police
Act and the provisions of Police Act (enacted under State List)
would be void to the extent of repugnancy- Therefore, in case
of inconsistency between s. 154 Cr.P. C. and s. 44 of Police
G Act, s. 154 will prevail and s.44 (or similar provisions) shall be
void to the extent of repugnancy - Police Act, 1861 - s.44.
Art.21 - Right to life -
Whether Violated, if FIR is
registered without holding preliminary inquiry -
Held:
H Registration of FIR uls. 154 Cr. P. C. is the 'procedure
LALITA KUMARI v. GOVT. OF U.P.
715
established by law' and thus is in conformity with Art.21 -
A
Hence registration of FIR as per the provisions of law, does
not violate rights guaranteed under Art. 21.
Investigation - Initiation of - By Police - Held: Police is
not liable to launch investigation in evey FIR which is
B
mandatorily registered uls. 154 Cr.P. C. - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - ss.154 and 157.
Police - Police records - FIR Books and General Diary!
Daily Diary/Station Diary - Distinction between - Discussed.
Interpretation of Statutes - Rule of interpretation - Literal
rule of interpretation - Application of - For interpretation of s.
154 Cr.P.C.
c
Maxim - 'unius est exclusion alterius' - Applicability of -
0
For interpretation of s. 154 Cr.P.C ..
Words and Phrases -
Inquiry -
Meaning of, in the
context of s. 2(g) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The instant cases were referred to Constitution
Bench for deciding the question whether a police officer
is bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon
receiving information relating to commission of a
cognizable offence uls. 154 Cr.P.C., or the police officer,
has the power to conduct a 'preliminary inquiry' in order
to test the veracity of such information before registering
the same.
·
Answering the reference, the Court
w
E
F
HELD: 1.1. FIR is a pertinent document in the criminal
G
law procedure and its main object from the point of view
of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion and
from the point of view of the investigating authorities is
to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity
so as to be able to take suitable steps to trace and to
H
716
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 14 S.C.R.
A bring to book the guilty. Historical experience has thrown
up cases from both the sides where the grievance of the
victim/informant of non-registration of valid FIRs as well
· as that of the accused of being unnecessarily harassed
and investigated upon false charges have been found to
B be correct. [Paras 23 and 24] [751-A-C]
State of Maharashtra vs. Sarangdharsingh Shivdassingh
Chavan and Anr. (2011) 1 sec 577; Preeti Gupta vs. State
of Jharkhand (2010) 7 sec 667: 2010 (9) SCR 1168;
C A/eque Padamsee and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.
(2007) 6 SCC 171: 2007 (8) SCR 390 - referred to.
1.2. A perusal of the provisions relating to
registration of FIR manifests the legislative intent in both,
old codes and the new code for compulsory registration
D of FIR in a case of cognizable offence without conducting
any Preliminary Inquiry. [Para 29] [755-E-F]
1.3. A significant change that took place by way of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was with respect
E to the placement of Section 154, i.e., the provision
imposing requirement of recording the first information
regarding commission of a cognizable offence in the
special book prior to Section 156, i.e., the provision
empowering the police officer to investigate a cognizable
offence. As such, the objective of such placement of
F provisions was clear which was to ensure that the
recording of the first information should be the starting
point of any investigation by the police. In the interest of
expediency of investigation since there was no safeguard
of obtaining permission from the Magistrate to commence
G an investigation, the said procedure of recording first
information in their books along with the signature/seal
of the informant, would act as an "extremely valuable
safeguard" against the excessive, mala fide and illegal
exercise of investigative powers by the police. [Para 31]
H [756-A-D]
LALITA KUMARI v. GOVT. OF U.P.
717
1.4. Provisions contained in Chapter XII of the Code
A
deal with information to the police and their powers to
investigate. The said Chapter sets out the procedure to
be followed during investigation. The objective to be
achieved by the procedure prescribed in the said Chapter
is to set the criminal law in motion and to provide for all
B
procedural safeguards so as to ensure that the
investigation is fair and is not mala fide and there is no
scope of tampering with the evidence collected during the
investigation. [Para 32] [756-D-F]
1.5. It is not correct to say that in view of s.166A IPC,
the legislature accepts that as far as cognizable offences
other than those mentioned in s.166A, IPC are concerned,
police has discretion to hold a preliminary inquiry if there
c·
is doubt about the correctness of the information.
Insertion of Section 166A in the IPC vide Criminal Law
D
(Amendment) Act 2013, must be read in consonance with
the provision and not contrary to it. The insertion of
Section 166A was in the light of recent unfortunate
occurrence of offences against women. The intention of
the legislature in putting forth this amendment was to. E
tighten the already existing provisions to provide
enhanced safeguards to women. Therefore, the
legislature, after noticing the increasing crimes against
women in the country, thought it is appropriate to
expressly punish the police officers for their failure to
register FIRs in these cases. No other meaning than this
can be assigned to for the insertion of the same. [Paras
F
33 and 34] [757-F-H; 758-A-C]
2.1. The first and foremost principle of interpretatiQn
G
of a statute in every system of interpretation is the literal
rule of interpretation. The language employed in Section
154 is the determinative factor of the legislative intent. A
plain reading of Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. provides that any
information relating to the commission of a cognizable
offence if given orally to an officer-in-charge of a police
H
718
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 14 S.C.R.
A station shall be reduced into writing by him or under his
direction. There is no ambiguity in the language of
Section 154(1 ). The language of Section 154(1 ), therefore,
admits of no other construction but the literal
B
c
construction. [Paras 36 and 37] [758-D-F; 759-E]
B. Premanand and Ors. vs. Mohan Koika/ and Ors.
(2011) 4 SCC 266: 2011 (3) SCR 932; Mis Hira/al Rattan/a/
Etc. Etc. vs. State of UP. and Anr. Etc. Etc. (1973) 1 SCC
216: 1973 (2) SCR 502 - relied on.
2.2. The condition that is sine qua non for recording
an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. is that there must be
information and that information must disclose a
cognizable offence. If any information disclosing a
cognizable offence is led before an officer in charge of
D the police station satisfying the requirement of Section
154(1 ), the said police officer has no other option except
to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that
is to say, to register a case on the basis of such
information. The provision of Secti9n 154 of the Code is
E mandatory and the concerned officer is duty bound to
register the case on the basis of information disclosing
a cognizable offence. Thus, the plain words of Section
154(1) of the Code have to be given their literal meaning.
[Para 39] [762-B-D]
F
2.3. The word "shall" in Section 154(1} of the Code
clearly shows the legislative intent that it is mandatory to
register an FIR if the information given to the police
discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The
object of using the word "shall" in the context of Section
G 154(1) of the Code is to ensure that all information relating
to all cognizable offences is promptly registered by the
police"and investigated in accordance with the provisions
of law. [Paras 40 and 42] [762-E; 763-B]
H
Khub Chand vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 1074:
LALITA \~UMARI v. GOVT. OF U.P.
719
1967 SCR 120; State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp.
A
.(1) sec 335: 1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259 - relied on.
B
2.4. Investigation of offences and prosecution of
offenders are the duties of the State. For "cognizable
offences", a duty has been cast upon the police to
register FIR and to conduct investigation except as
otherwise permitted specifically under Section 157 of the
Code. If a discretion, option or latitude is allowed to the
police in the matter of registration of FIRs, it can have
serious consequences on the public order situation and
C
can also adversely affect the rights of the victims
including violating their fundamental fight to equality.
[Para 43] [763-C-D]
2.5. Therefore, the context in which the word "shall"
appears in Section 154(1) of the Code, the object for D
which it has been used and the consequences that will
follow from the infringement of the direction to register
FIRs, all these factors clearly show that the word "shall"
used in Section 154(1) needs to be given its ordinary
meaning of being of "mandatory" character. The
E
provisions of Section 154(1) of the Code, read in the light
of the statutory scheme, do not admit of conferring any
discretion on the officer in-charge of the police station for
embarking upon a preliminary inquiry prior to the
registration of an FIR. It is settled position of law that if
F ·
the provision is unambiguous and the legislative intent
is clear, the court need not call into it any other rules of
construction. (Para 44) [763-E-G]
3.1. The legislature has consciously used the
expression "information" in Section 154(1) of the Code
G
as against the expression used in Section 41(1)(a) and (g)
where the expression used for arresting a person without
warrant is "reasonable complaint" or "credible
information". The expression under Section 154(1) of the
Code is not qualified by the prefix ''reasonable" or
H
720
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 14 S.C.R.
A "credible". The non qualification of the word
"information" in Section 154(1) unlike in Section 41(1)(a)
and (g) of the Code is for the reason that the police officer
should not refuse to record any information relating to
the commission of a cognizable offence on the ground
B that he is not satisfied with the reasonableness or
credibility of the information. In other words,
reasonableness or credibility of the said information is
not a condition precedent for the registration of a case.
(Para 64) [771-B-E]
c
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC
335: 1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259; Ramesh Kumari vs. State
(NCT of Delhi) (2006) 2 sec 677: 2006 (2) SCR 403;
Parka sh Singh Badal vs. State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC 1:
2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 197; Ram Lal Narang vs. State (Delhi
D Administration) (1979) 2 SCC 322; Lal/an Chaudhary and
Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (2006) 12 SCC 229: 2006
(7) Suppl. SCR 202 - relied on.
3.2. In terms of the language used in Section 154 of
E the Code, the police is duty bound to proceed to conduct
investigation into a cognizable offence even without
receiving information (i.e. FIR) about commission of such
an offence, if the officer in charge of the police station
otherwise suspects the commission of such an offence.
F The legislative intent is therefore quite clear, i.e., to ensure
that every cognizable offence is promptly investigated in
accordance with law. This being the legal position, there
is no reason that there should be any discretion or option
left with the police to register or not to register an FIR
G when information is given about the commission of a
cognizable offence. [Para 73) [783-0-F]
3.3. The insertion of sub-section (3) of Section 154,
by way of an amendment, reveals the intention of the
legislature to ensure that no information of commission
H of a cognizable offence must be ignored or not acted
LALITA KUMARI v. GOVT. OF U.P.
721
upon which would result in unjustified protection of the
A
alleged offender/accused. [Para 74) [783-H; 784-A]
3.4. The maxim expression unius est exclusion
alterius (expression of one thing is the exclusion of
another) applies in the interpretation of Section 154 of the
B
Code, where the mandate of recording the information in
writing excludes the possibility of not recording an
information of commission of a cognizable crime in the
special register. [Para 75) [784-B]
4.1. It is not correct to state that information will be
C
first recorded in the General Diary and only after
preliminary inquiry, if required, the information will be
registered as FIR. The First Information Report is in fact
the "information" that is received first in point of time,
which is either given in writing or is reduced to writing. It D
is not the "substance" of it, which is to be entered in the
diary prescribed by the State Government. The term
'General Diary' (also called as 'Station Diary' or 'Daily
Diary' in some States) is maintained not under Section
154 of the Code but under the provisions of Section 44
E
of the Police Act, 1861 in the States to which it applies,
or under the respective provisions of the Police Act(s)
applicable to a State or under the Police Manual of a State,
as the case may be. [Paras 48 and 61) [764-G-H; 765-AB; 769-F]
F
Superintendent of Police, CBI vs. Tapan Kumar Singh
(2003) 6 sec 175: 2003 (3) SCR 485 - relied on.
4.2. It is thus clear that registration of FIR is to be
done in a book called FIR Book or FIR Register. Of G
course, in addition, the gist of the FIR or the substance
of the FIR may also be mentioned simultaneously in the
General Diary as mandate~ in the respective Police Act
or Rules, as the case may be, under the relevant State
provisions. [Para 54) [766-G]
H
722
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 14 S.C.R.
A
Madhu Bala vs. Suresh Kumar (1997) 8 SCC 476: 1997
(3) Suppl. SCR 32; State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1992
Supp. (1) sec 335: 1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259 - relied on.
4.3. The General Diary is a record of all important
8 transactions/events taking place in a police station,
-including departure and arrival of police staff, handing
over or taking over of charge, arrest of a person, details
of law and order duties, visit of senior officers etc. It is in
this context that gist or substance of each FIR being
C registered in the police station is also mentioned in the
Gen'eral Diary since registration of FIR also happens to
be a very important event in the police station. Since
General Diary is a record that is maintained
chronologically on day-to-day basis (on each day,
starting with new number 1), the General Diary entry
D reference is also mentioned simultaneously in the FIR
Book, while FIR number is mentioned in the General
Diary entry since both of these are prepared
simultaneously. [Para 55] [766-H; 767-A-C]
E
4.4. The signature of the complainant is obtained in
the FIR Book as and when the complaint is given to the
police station. On the other hand, there is no such
requirement of obtaining signature of the complainant in
the general diary. Moreover, at times, the complaint given
F may consist of large number of pages, in which case, it
is only the gist of the complaint which is to be recorded
in the General Diary and not the full complaint. This does
not fit in with the suggestion that what is recorded in
General Diary should be considered to be the fulfillment/
G compliance of the requirement of Section 154 of
registration of FIR. In fact, the usual practice is to record
the complete complaint in the FIR book (or annex it with
the FIR form) but record only about one or two
paragraphs (gist of the information) in the General Diary.
H [Para 58] [767-G-H; 768-A-B]
LALITA KUMARI v. GOVT. OF U.P.
723
4.5. Thus registration of FIR is mandatory and also
A
that it is to be recorded in the FIR Book by giving a unique
annual number to each FIR to enable strict tracking of
each and every registered FIR by the superior police
officers as well as by the competent court to which
copies of each FIR are required to be sent. [Para 63] [770B
H; 771-A]
'
4.6. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary
is the record of all information received in a poJice station,
it is directed that all information relating to cognizable
C
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.
[Para 111 (viii)] [802-D-E]
5. Section 39 of the Code casts a statutory duty on
every person to inform about commission of certain
offences which includes offences covered by Sections
121 to 126, 302, 64-A, 382, 392 etc., of the IPC. It would
D
be incongruous to suggest that though it is the duty of
E
every citizen to inform about commission of an offence,
but it is not obligatory on the officer-incharge of a Police
Station to register the report. The word 'shall' occurring
in Section 39 of the Code has to be given the same
meaning as the word 'shall' occurring in Section 154(1)
F
of the Code. [Para 46] [764-C-D]
6.1. The Code was enacted under Entry 2 of the
Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution while the Police Act, 1861 (or other similar
Acts in respective States) were enacted under Entry 2 of G
the State List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
It is clear from the mandate of Article 254(1) of the
Constitution that if there is any inconsistency between
the provisions of the Code and the Police Act, 1861, the
provisions of the Code will prevail and the provisions of
H
724
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 14 S.C.R.
A the Police Act would be void to the extent of the
repugnancy. [Paras 59 and 60] [768-C-D; 769-C]
6.2. If at all, there is any inconsistency in the
provisions of Section 154 of the Code and Section 44 of
8 the Police Act, 1861, with regard to the fact as to whether
the FIR is to be registered in the FIR book or in the
General Diary, the provisions of Section 154 of the Code
will prevail and the provisions of Section 44 of the Police
Act, 1861 (or similar provisions of th~ respective
corresponding Police Act or Rules in other respective
C States) shall be void to the extent of the repugnancy.
[Para 61] [769-D-E]
7.1. It is not correct to say that mandatory registration
of FIRs will lead to arbitrary arrest, which will directly be
D in contravention of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Conducting an investigation into an offence after
registration of FIR under Section 154 of the Code is the
"procedure established by law" and, thus, is in
conformity with Article 21 of the Constitution.
E Accordingly, the right of the accused under Article 21 of
the Constitution is protected if the FIR is registered first
and then the investigation is conducted in accordance
with the provisions of law. [Paras 76 and 97] [784-C-D;
794-F]
F
7.2. While registration of FIR is mandatory, arrest of
the accused immediately on registration of FIR is not at
all mandatory. In fact, registration of FIR u/s. 154 and
arrest of an accused person u/s. 41 are two entirely
different concepts under the law, and there are several
G safeguards available against arrest. Moreover, it is also
pertinent to mention that an accused person also has a
right to apply for "anticipatory bail" under the provisions
of Section 438 of the Code if the conditions mentioned
therein are satisfied. The remedy lies in strictly enforcing
H the safeguards available against arbitrary arrests made
LALITA KUMARI v. GOVT. OF U.P.
725
by the police and not in allowing the police to avoid
A
mandatory registration of FIR when the information
discloses commission of a cognizable offence. [Paras 98
and 100] [794-G-H; 795-A; 796-A-B]
7.3. Besides, the Code gives power to the police to
8
close a matter both before and after investigation. A police
officer can foreclose an FIR before an investigation under
Section 157 of the Code, if it appears to him that there is
no sufficient ground to investigate the same. The police
officer can also, in a given case, investigate the matter and
C
then file a final report under Section 173 of the Code
seeking closure of the matter. Therefore, the police is not
liable to launch an investigation in every FIR which is
mandatorily registered on receiving information relating
to commission of a cognizable offence. [Para 102] [796-FH]
D
7.4. Thus, the Scheme of the Code not only ensures
that the time of the police should not be wasted on false
and frivolous information but also that the police should
not intentionally refrain from doing their duty of
E
investigating cognizable offences. As a result, the
apprehension of misuse of the provision of mandatory
registration of FIR is unfounded and speculative in
nature. [Para 103] [797-E-F]
F
7.5. It is true that a delicate balance has to be
maintained between the interest of the society and
protecting the liberty of an individual. But there are
already sufficient safeguards provided in the Code which
duly protect the liberty of an individual in case of
registration of false FIR. At the same time, Section 154 G
was drafted keeping in mind the interest of the victim and
the society. Therefore, mandatory registration of FIRs
under Section 154 of the Code will not be in contravention
of Article 21 of the Constitution. [Para 105] [798-B-C]
H
726
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 14 S.C.R.
A
8. It is true that the concept of "preliminary inquiry" is
contained in Chapter IX of the Crime Manual of the CBI.
However, this Crime Manual is not a statute and has not
been enacted by the legislature. It is a set of administrative
orders issued for internal guidance of the CBI officers. It
B cannot supersede the Code. Moreover, in the absence of
any indication to the contrary in the Code itself, the
provisions of the CBI Crime Manual cannot be relied upon
to import the concept of holding of preliminary inquiry in
the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The CBI
c is constituted under a Special Act, namely, the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and it derives its
power to investigate from this Act. Though there is
reference to the term 'preliminary inquir}t' and 'inquiry'
under Sections 159 and Sections 202 and 340 of the Code,
0 that is a judicial exercise undertaken by the Court and not
by the Police and is not relevant for the purpose of the
present reference. It may be submitted that Sections 4(2)
and 5 of the Code permit special procedures to be followed
for special Acts. Thus, the powers of the CBI under the
DSPE Act, cannot be equated with the powers of the
E regular State Police under the Code. [Paras 78, 79, 80 and
82] [784-G; 785-A-D; 786-C]
9. Inquiry under the Code is relatable to a judicial act
and not to the steps taken by the Police which are either
F investigation after the stage of Section 154 of the Code or
termed as 'Preliminary Inquiry' and which are prior to the
registration of FIR, even though, no entry in the General
Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary has been made. Though
there is reference to the term 'preliminary inquiry' and
G 'inquiry' under Sections 159 and Sections 202 and 340 of
the Code, that is a judicial exercise undertaken by the
Court and not by the Police and is not relevant for the
purpose of the present reference. [Para 77 & 78] [784-FG]
H
10.1. The object sought to be achieved by registering
LALITA KUMAR! v. GOVT. OF U.P.
727
the earliest information as FIR is inter alia two fold: one,
A
that the criminal process is set into motion and is well
documented from the very start; and second, that the
earliest information received in relation to the commission
of a cognizable offence is recorded so that there cannot
be any embellishment etc., later. (Para 83] [786-D-E]
B
10.2. Principles of democracy and liberty demand a
regular and efficient check on police powers. One way of
keeping check on authorities with such powers is by
documenting every action of theirs. Accordingly, under C
the Code, actions of the police etc., are provided to be
written and documented. (Para 84] (786-F]
10.3. The underpinnings of compulsory registration
of FIR is not only to ensure transparency in the criminal
justice delivery system but also to ensure 'judicial
D
oversight'. [Para 86] [787-D]
10.4. The registration of FIR either on the basis of the
information furnished by the informant under Section
154(1) of the Code or otherwise under Section 157(1) of E
the Code is obligatory. The obligation to register FIR has
inherent advantages: a) It is the first step to 'access to
justice' for a victim. It upholds the 'Rule of Law' inasmuch
as the ordinary person brings forth the commission of a
cognizable crime in the knowledge of the State. It also
facilitates swift investigation and sometimes even
prevention of the crime. In both cases, it only effectuates
the regime of law. It leads to less manipulation in criminal
cases and lessens incidents of 'ante-dates' FIR or
deliberately delayed FIR. [Para 88] (787-G-H; 788-A-C]
10.5. According to the Statement of Objects and
Reasons, protection of the interests of the poor is clearly
one of the main objects of the Code. Making registration
F
G
of information relating to commission of a cognizable
offence mandatory would help the society, especially, the
H
728
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 14 S.C.R.
A poor in rural and remote areas of the country. [Para 92]
[792-C-D]
10.6. The number of Fl Rs not registered is
approximately equivalent to the number of FIRs actually
8 registered. Keeping in view the NCRB figures that show
that about 60 lakh cognizable offences were registered
in India during the year 2012, the burking of crime may
itself be in the range of about 60 lakh every year. Thus,
such a large number of FIRs are not registered every
C year, which is a clear violation of the rights of the victims
of such a large number of crimes. Burking of crime leads
to dilution of the rule of law in the short run; and also has
a very negative impact on the rule of law in the long run
since people stop having respect for rule of law. Thus,
non-registration of such a large number of FIRs leads to
D a definite lawlessness in the society. [Paras 94 and 95]
[794-A-C]
11.1. Although, in unequivocal terms, it is held that
Section 154 of the Code postulates the mandatory
E registration of FIRs on receipt of all cognizable offence,
yet, there may be instances where preliminary inquiry
may be required owing to the change in genesis and
novelty of crimes with the passage of time. One such
instance is in the case of allegations relating to medical
F negligence on the part of doctors. It will be unfair and
inequitable to prosecute a medical professional only on
the basis of the allegations in the complaint. [Para 106]
[798-0-E]
11.2. Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section
G 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
H conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence
LALITA KUMARI v. GOVT. OF U.P.
729
is disclosed or not. If the inquiry discloses the
A
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
B
brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding
further. [Para 111] [800-G-H; 801-A-C]
11.3. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify
the veracity or otherwise of the information received but C
only to ascertain whether the information reveals any
cognizable offence. 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 for
illustration, are: (a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes;
D
(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.
E
[Para 111 v and vi] [801-E-H; 802-A]
11.4. 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
F
exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of
it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. [Para 111
vii] [802-C]
E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3:
1974 (2) SCR 348; S.M.O. Kiran Pasha vs. Government of G
Andhra Pradesh (1990) 1 SCC 328: 1989 (2) Suppl. SCR
105; D.K. Basu vs. State of W.B. (1997) 1 SCC 416: 1996
(10) Suppl. SCR 284; Uma Shankar Sitani vs. Commissioner
of Police, Delhi and Ors. (1996) 11 SCC 714; Francis Coralie
Mullin vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981) 1
H
730
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 14 S.C.R.
A SCC 608: 1981 (2) SCR 516 Common Cause, A Registered
Society vs. Union of India (1999) 6 SCC 667: 1999 (3) SCR
1279 District Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad vs. Canara
Bank (2005) 1 SCC 496: 2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 833;
Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra
B (2005) 5 SCC 294: 2005 (3) SCR 345; Superintendent of
Police, CBI vs. Tapan Kumar Singh (2003) 6 SCC 175: 2003
(3) SCR 485; State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Bhagwant Kishore
Joshi (1964) 3 SCR 71; P. Sirajuddin vs. State of Madras
(1970) 1 SCC 595: 1970 (3) SCR 931; Sevi vs. State of Tamil
c Nadu 1981 Supp SCC 43; Shashikant vs. Central Bureau
of Investigation (2007) 1 SCC 630: 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR
474; Rajinder Singh Katoch vs. Chandigarh Admn. (2007) 10
SCC 69: 2007 (11) SCR 246; Vineet Narain vs. Union of
India (1998) 1 sec 226: 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 595;
0
Elumalai vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1983 LW (CRL) 121; A.
Lakshmanarao vs. Judicial Magistrate, Parvatipuram AIR 1971
SC 186: 1971 (2) SCR 822; State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram
Sagar Yadav and Ors. (1985) 1 SCC 552: 1985 (2) SCR 621;
Mona Panwar vs. High Court of Judicature of Allahabad
(2011) 3 SCC 496: 2011 (2) SCR 413; Apren Joseph vs.
E State of Kera/a (1973) 3 SCC 114: 1973 (2) SCR 16; King
Emperor vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18 - referred
to.
Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
F (2008) 7 SCC 164; Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar
Pradesh and Ors. (2008) 14 SCC 337; Lalita Kumari vs.
Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2012) 4 SCC 1: 2012
(1) SCR 1066; Govindla/ Chhaganla/ Patel vs. Agricultural
Produce Market Committee, Godhra and Ors. (1975) 2 SCC
G 482: 1976 (1) SCR 451; Ganesh Bhavan Patel and Anr. vs.
State of Maharashtra (1978) 4 SCC 371: 1979 (2) SCR 94;
Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and Anr: (2005) 6 SCC 1:
2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 307; State of West Bengal vs.
Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal
H (2010) 3 SCC 571: 2010 (2) SCR 979; H.N. Rishbud and
LALITA KUMARI v. GOVT. OF U.P.
731
lnder Singh vs. State of Delhi AIR 1955 SC 196: 1955 SCR
A
1150; S.N. Sharma vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari (1970) 1 SCC
653: 1970 (3) SCR 946; Union of India vs. Prakash P.
Hinduja (2003) 6 SCC 195: 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 307;
Sheikh Hasib alias Tabarak vs. State of Bihar (1972) 4 SCC
773; Ashok Kumar Todi vs. Kishwar Jahan and Ors. (2011)
B
3 SCC 758: 2011 (3) SCR 597; Padma Sundara Rao (Dead)
and Ors. vs. State of T.N. and Ors. (2002) 3 sec 533: 2002
(2) SCR 383 Mannalal Khatic vs. The State AIR 1967 Cal
478; Mohindro vs. State of Punjab (2001) 9 SCC 581; Munna
Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 1992 Crl. L.J. 1558; c
Giridhari Lal Kanak vs. State and ors. 2002 Crl. L.J. 2113;
Katteri Moideen Kutty Haji vs. State of Kera/a 2002 (2)
Crimes 143; Re: Subbaratnam and Ors. AIR 1949 Madras
663; Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248:
1978 (2) SCR 621; Chairman Board of Mining Examination
0
and Chief Inspector of Mines and Anr. vs. Ramjee (1977) 2
SCC 256: 1977 (2) SCR 904; La/it Mohan Pandey vs.
Pooran Singh (2004) 6 SCC 626: 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 737;
Prativa Bose vs. Kumar Rupendra Deb Raikat (1964) 4 SCR
69; Thu/ia Kali vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1972) 3 SCC 393:
1972 (3) SCR 622; Joginder Kumar vs. State of UP. and Ors.
(1994) 4 sec 260 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
(2008) 1 sec 164
referred to
Para 3
(2008) 14 sec 337
referred to
Para 4
1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259 relied on
Para 38,
53,
2006 (2) SCR 403
relied on
Para 4, 66
2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 197 relied on
Para 4, 65
1970 (3) SCR 931
relied on
Para 4
1981 Supp sec 43
referred to
Para 4
2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 474 referred to
Para 4 ·
E
F
G
H
732
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 14 S.C.R.
A
2007 (11) SCR 246
referred to
Para 4
2012 (1) SCR 1066
referred to
Para 5
2011 (3) SCR 932
relied on
Para 37
1973 (2) SCR 502
relied on
Para 37
B
1976 (1) SCR 451
referred to
Para 9
1979 (2) SCR 94
referred to
Para 10
2007 (8) SCR 390
referred to
Para 26
c
(1979) 2 sec 322
referred to
Para 10
2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 202 referred to
Para 10
(1964) 3 SCR 71
referred to
Para 11
D
2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 307 referred to
Para 11
2003 (3) SCR 485
referred to
Para 12
1967 SCR 120
relied on
Para 41
2010 (2) SCR 979
referred to
Para 12
E
1955 SCR 1150
referred to
Para 13
1970 (3) SCR 946
referred to
Para 13
2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 307 referred to
Para 13
F
(1972) 4 sec 113
referred to
Para 13
2011 (3) SCR 597
referred to
Para 13
2002 (2) SCR 383
referred to
Para 13
AIR 1967 Cal 478
referred to
Para 13
G
(2001 > 9 sec 581
referred to
Para 16
1992 Crl. L.J. 1558
referred to
Para 16
2002 Crl. L.J. 2113
referred to
Para 16
H
2002 (2) Crimes 143
referred to
Para 16
LALITA KUMARI v. GOVT. OF U.P.
733
AIR 1949 Madras 663
referred to
Para 17
A
1978 (2) SCR 621
referred to
Para 19
1977 (2) SCR 904
referred to
Para 20
2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 737 referred to
Para 20
B
(1964) 4 SCR 69
referred to
Para 20
(2011 > 1 sec 577
referred to
Para 25
2010 (9) SCR 1168
referred to
Para·27
1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 32
relied on
Para 53
c
1974 (2) SCR 348
referred to
Para 70
1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 105 referred to
Para 70
1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 284 referred to
Para 70
D
(1996) 11 sec 114
referred to
Para 70
1981 (2) SCR 516
referred to
Para 70
1999 (3) SCR 1279
referred to
Para 70
2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 833 referred to
Para 70
E
2005 (3) SCR 345
referred to
Para 70
1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 595 referred to
Para 71
1983 LW (CRL) 121
referred to
Para 71
F
1971 (2) SCR 822
referred to
Para 71
1985 (2) SCR 621
referred to
Para 71
2-011 (2) SCR 413
referred to
Para 71
1973 (2) SCR 16
referred to
Para 71
G
AIR 1945 PC 18
referred to
Para 71
1972 (3) SCR 622
referred to
Para 89
(1994) 4 sec 260
referred to
Para 99
H
734
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 14 S.C.R.
A
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Crl)
B
No. 68 of 2008.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
WITH
SLP (Crl.) Nos. 5986 of 2006, 5200 of 2009, Crl. A. Nos. 1410
of 2011, 1267 of 2007 & Contempt Pet. (C) No. D 26722 of
2008 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 68 of 2008.
C
Mohan Parasaran, SG, K.V. Vishwanathan, A.S.
Chandhiok, Sidharth Luthra, ASG, S.B. Upadhyay, R.K. Dash,
Vibha Datta Makhija, Shekhar Naphade, Krishna Sarma, V.
Madhukar, Subramonium Prasad, Manjit Singh, Dr. Manish
Singhvi, AAG, Mona K. Rajvanshi, B.K. Shahi, Anurag Kashyap,
D B.P. Gupta, Ashwani Kumar, G. Sivabalamurugan, Anis
Mohammad, Dayanadan Pandey, L.K. Pandey, Abhijat P.
Medh, Shalu Sharma, Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Debasis Misra,
Satya Siddiqui, Sarfraz A. Siddiqui, S.K. Mishra, D.S. Mahra,
Dr. Ashok Dhamija, Rajiv Nanda, Sonia Dhamija, P.K. Dey,
T.A. Khan, B.V. Bairam Das, Gaurav Srivastava, Archana
E Singh, Abhisth Kumar, Vikrant Yadav, Kamalendra Mishra,
C.D. Singh, Arjun Dewan, Supriya Juneja, Gurmohan Singh
Bedi, Anandana Handa, Charul Sarin, Mishra Saurabh, Sanjay
Kharde, Shankar Chillarge, Sachin Patil Shubhangi Tuli, Asha
G. Nair, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Arputham Aruna & Co.,
F Sharmila Upadhyay, Debasis Mishra, Ena Toli Serna,
Hemantika Wahi, Parul Kumari, Anil Shrivastava, Rituraj
Biswas, Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh,
Kamini Jaiswal, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Mukesh Verma,
Naresh K. Sharma, P.V. Dinesh, Anitha Shenoy, Gopal Singh,
G Manish Kumar, Chandan Kumar, Ritu Raj Biswas, Anil K. Jha,
Riku Sarma, Navnit Kumar, (for Corporate Law Group,) Sumita
Hazarika, Satish Vig, Aruneshwar Gupta, D. Bharathi Reddy,
V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle, Prabhu Ramasubramanian,
Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Ajay Pal, R. Nedurmaran, Ranjan
H Mukherjee, A. Subhashini, Dr. Monika Gusain, S.
LALITA KUMARI v. GOVT. OF U.P.
735
Thannanjayan, Sudharshan Singh Rawat, Rameshwar Prasad
A
Goyal, Dinesh Sharma, Paritosh Anil, Anvita Cowshish, Kuldip
Singh, M. Yogesh Kanna, Vanita Chandrakant Giri, A. Shanta
Kumar, Sasikala, K.N. Madhusoodhanan, R. Sathish, Vivekta
Singh, Tarjit Singh, Vikas Sharma, Vinay Kuhar, Kamal Mohan
Gupta, Amit Lubhaya, lrshad Ahmad for the Appearing Parties.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI. 1.