Criminal Procedure Code

Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh

(2014) 2 SCC 1

Citation: (2014) 2 SCC 1
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 12 November 2013
Bench: P. Sathasivam CJI, B.S. Chauhan, Ranjana Prakash Desai, Ranjan Gogoi and S.A. Bobde JJ. (Constitution Bench)

Facts

Lalita Kumari was a minor whose father complained that she had been kidnapped.
The police did not immediately register an FIR despite receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence.
The family had to approach senior authorities and the courts before meaningful action was taken.
Conflicting Supreme Court decisions existed on whether police could conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR.
A Constitution Bench was constituted to determine the correct interpretation of Section 154 CrPC.

Whether registration of an FIR is mandatory when information discloses a cognizable offence.
Whether police may first test the truth of the allegation through a preliminary inquiry.

Section 154(1) uses mandatory language.
Where information clearly discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the police officer must register an FIR.
At that stage, the officer is not permitted to examine:
whether the informant is truthful;
whether the evidence will ultimately be sufficient;
whether the accused has a defence; or
whether conviction is likely.
The purpose of registration is to set the investigation machinery in motion.
A preliminary inquiry is permissible only where the information does not immediately disclose a cognizable offence but indicates that one may have occurred.
The judgment identified illustrative categories such as:
matrimonial and family disputes;
commercial offences;
medical negligence;
corruption cases; and
complaints made after abnormal delay.
Such an inquiry is only to determine whether a cognizable offence is disclosed—not to prove the case.
The officer must record reasons where an inquiry results in closure.
Failure to register an FIR despite disclosure of a cognizable offence may result in disciplinary action.
BNSS change: Section 173(3) now expressly permits a preliminary inquiry, with prior permission of an officer not below Deputy Superintendent rank, for certain offences punishable between three and seven years, to be completed within fourteen days. The Constitution Bench rule must therefore be read with this new statutory provision in BNSS-governed cases.

Kidnapping of a minor was plainly a cognizable offence.
The police had no lawful basis to postpone registration while informally testing the complaint.
Immediate registration would:
create an official record;
prevent later alteration of the information;
impose accountability on the police;
permit statutory investigation; and
protect the victim during the critical early period.
The Court rejected the argument that mandatory registration would necessarily cause harassment.
Protection against false cases exists at later stages through:
fair investigation;
closure reports;
judicial scrutiny;
bail;
quashing in exceptional cases; and
prosecution for false information where legally justified.
Police cannot avoid their statutory duty merely because some complaints may ultimately prove untrue.
At the same time, the Court recognised that certain complaints may be unclear and require limited verification.
The preliminary inquiry exception was therefore carefully restricted.
It cannot become a disguised full investigation before FIR registration.
Once the inquiry reveals a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered immediately.
The Court balanced individual liberty with victim protection by separating:
registration, which follows disclosure of the offence; and
proof, which is determined through investigation and trial.

The Constitution Bench held that FIR registration is mandatory where the information discloses a cognizable offence.
Preliminary inquiry is permissible only in limited situations where the information is uncertain.
Police officers who deliberately fail to register may face action.
The case remains the leading authority on the duty to register an FIR, subject now to the express preliminary-inquiry framework introduced by Section 173(3) BNSS. ( )