Case Summary: Lalita Kumari vs. State of UP & Ors.

• Case name: Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. & Ors.

• Citation: 2014 2 SCC 1
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan, Ranjana Prakash Desai, Ranjan Gogoi, S.A. Bobde
• Parties: Petitioner: Lalita Kumari
Respondents: Govt. of U.P. and Others

• Brief facts:
The petitioner, a minor girl was kidnapped by local goons. Her father, Bhola Kamat went
to police station to lodge an FIR which police refused. The father further went to the
superintendent of police and under his direction a FIR was registered. But even then,
investigation was not started and the police did not take any measure to nab the accused or
recover the minor girl either.
Hence, a writ petition was filed under article 32 before the Supreme Court.

• Issue: The main issue was whether a police officer is bound to register a First
Information Report (FIR) upon receiving any information relating to commission of a
cognizable offence under Section 154 of the CrPC 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.

• Argument of the petitioner: The counsel on behalf of the petitioner contended that
upon receiving an information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, it is
imperative on part of the officer-in-charge of the police station to register a case under
section 154 of CrPC.

• Argument of the respondent: The contention raised by the counsel of the defendant
was that the officer-in charge of the police station is not obliged under law to register a
case on disclosure of commission of a cognizable offence, rather in suitable cases, to hold a
preliminary inquiry to check the veracity of the allegations made in the report.
• Judgement:
The Supreme Court observed that-
1. Registration of FIR is mandatory under section 154, if information discloses commission
of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is to be done in such case.

2. If 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 there was
a commission of a cognizable offence or not.

3. If an unanimous complaint is lodged, it must first be put in the list of preliminary

inquiry, if there is well found substance regarding commission of cognizable offence, then
FIR is to be registered.

4. If there is a chance that a certain complaint could be false, preliminary inquiry is to be

conducted.

5. If preliminary inquiry discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be

registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, the copy of
the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant within a week disclosing
the reason behind closing the case.

6. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is
disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers.

7. Scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify veracity or otherwise of the information

received but only to ascertain whether information received discloses commission of
cognizable offence or not.

8. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend
on facts and circumstances of each case. Preliminary inquiry must be done in cases like-
a. matrimonial disputes or family disputes
b. commercial offences
c. medical negligence
d. corruption cases
e. cases where there is an abnormal delay or laches in reporting the matter.

9. While ensuring and protecting rights of accused and complainant, a preliminary inquiry
must not exceed 7 days. In case of further delay, the reason behind the delay must be noted
down in the General Diary.

10. Since general diary or station diary or daily diary is the record of all information
received in a police station, it is directed that all information relating to cognizable
offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry must be
meticulously noted in such diary. If preliminary inquiry is done, the reason behind doing
so is to be noted.

• Further development: Answering this question of law, matter was referred before the
appropriate bench for disposal based on merit.

• Importance of the case: Registration of FIR in case of cognizable offence was made
mandatory.
Critical Analysis of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.

Introduction
On 13th November 2013, the Supreme Court of India consisting of a five Judge bench passed a
Landmark Judgement which is cited even today in the midst of the Rafale case. However this
Judgement is not free from criticism. The Five Judge bench held that once a cognizable offense
is made out under Section 154 of CRPC the police have to mandatorily register the FIR.

In this article, I argue that this Judgement is against the jurisprudence of previous notable
judgments of the Supreme Court like Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra. This case has raised
eyebrows regarding the power of the Police to conduct Preliminary Inquiry, Principles of
Malicious Prosecution. In this article I also argue that Mandatory registration of FIR by the
police without proper scrutiny is a dangerous and extreme position held by the Supreme Court
which is contrary to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Furthermore the court failed to
consider the consequences of an FIR registered against a citizen and the social stigma a person
has to face. The article concludes that the judgment ends up showing intentions of giving
dictatorial power to police and takes away many rights essential in seeking criminal remedy,
thus, defeating the very purpose of people approaching the police for enforcement of their
rights, and nullifying the purpose of the criminal justice system.

The three-Judge bench in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP and Others opined that registration of

First Information Report (hereinafter FIR) should be Non-Mandatory. They reasoned that an
officer should be satisfied that an offense is made out in the FIR after a preliminary inquiry as
an FIR leads to serious consequences for the accused and for this reason the need for a
preliminary inquiry is implicit with the provisions of section 154 of Code of Criminal
Procedure. These provisions should be read down in the light of Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution.

Facts of the Case in Brief 

The writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the constitution by Lalita Kumari(Minor)
through her father Shri Bhola Kamat for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus as the officer
–in-charge of the police station who did not take any action. The petitioner stated that even
after registration of FIR no concrete steps were taken to recover the minor girl or trace the
accused. The court on 14.7.2008 passed a comprehensive order expressing its grave anguish on
non-registration of the FIR even in a case of a cognizable offense.

Issues
Whether the police officer should compulsorily register an FIR under Section 154 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to Cognizable offence or the police officer to check the
authenticity of the complaint can conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR? 

Contentions of the Parties

The counsel for the petitioner stated to the court that when the officer-in-charge of the police
station receives a complaint disclosing a cognizable, he has to mandatorily register an FIR
under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Reliance was placed on the Judgments of
The Supreme Court like State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of
Delhi) and Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab. The Counsel draws the attention of the
court that under Section 154(1) of the Code the word “Shall” is used by the Legislation signifies
the legislative intention and it is compulsory for the police officer to register the FIR.

He stated that under section 154 of the code there are no implicit provisions relating to
Preliminary inquiry and there is no discretion left to the police officer.

In support of his arguments, he placed heavy reliance on the following judgments viz. B.
Premanand v.MohanKoikal, Hiralal Rattanlal v. State of U.P. and Govindlal Chhaganlal
Patel v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Godhra.

The counsel for the respondent submitted that the registration of an FIR cannot be subjected
to a straitjacket formula as it is an administrative act requiring the application of mind,
scrutiny, and verification of the facts. No administrative act can ever be a mechanical one. He
placed reliance on Rajinder Singh Katoch, P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, State of
U.P. v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi, and Sevi v. State of T.N., which holds that before registering
an FIR under Section 154 of the Code, it is open to the police officer to hold a preliminary
inquiry to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case of commission of a cognizable offense
or not. The learned counsel submitted that a statute should not be interpreted in such manner
where it leads to a absence of any discretion to the police officer especially in Fake cases where
registration of an FIR leads to an empty formality. 

Also, for the receipt and recording of information, the report is not a condition precedent to
the setting in motion of a criminal investigation. The counsel explained that a provision for
preliminary inquiry already exists in cases like Corruption, Medical Negligence and
Matrimonial Offences. 

The counsel submitted to the court that every statute should be interpreted while keeping in
mind the provisions of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution which provides protection to an
innocent person from baseless charges. In situations like these, a police officer needs to be
equipped with the power of conducting a Preliminary inquiry.

Critique of the Judgement 

In this article, I argue that the Hon’ble Court has gone against the jurisprudence of previous
notable judgments of the Supreme Court like Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra. 

In the judgment of Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra the Supreme Court took great pains in
demarking the powers of the police and the judiciary. They explained the duties of the police,
in the matter of investigation of offenses, as well as their powers, it is necessary to refer to the
provisions contained in Chapter XIV of the Code. Sections beginning from Section 154, and
ending with Section 176. Section 154 deals with information relating to the commission of a
cognizable offense, and the procedure to be adopted in respect of the same. In each of these
sections, there is no role of Judiciary, the sections provide guidelines to the police on how to
proceed with the Investigation but there is always a discretion to the police officer to conduct a
preliminary inquiry in case a complaint does not clearly disclose a Cognizable offense or has
doubts over the veracity of the complaint.

In Nazir Ahmed case, H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. State of Delhi:

The court held that the Judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters such as
Investigation especially of cognizable offence which is the statutory right of the police. The
court observed that the police needs no authorisation of the judiciary. The court opined that
the functions of the police and judiciary are complimentary and not overlapping keeping in
mind individual liberty and law and order situation in the Country. The judiciary role comes
into play when a charge is established and not before that. 

In Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court categorically stated that an officer
in charge of the police station cannot be expected to register an FIR on receiving information
which does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The court observed that it
should be open to the officer-in-charge to check the veracity of the complaint and further
inquiry whether a cognizable offence has been committed. 

In Sevi v. State of Tamil Nadu also the court had expressly ruled that before registering the
FIR under section 154 of CrPC it is open to the station house officer (SHO) to hold a
preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case of commission of a
cognizable offense or not. 

Lastly the Bombay High Court has laid general principles governing preliminary inquiry which
can be followed by the courts. Such guides give discretion to the police to keep a check in
frivolous complaints and also does not cause undue harassment to the accused. Therefore in
the case of Kalpana Kutty v. State of Maharashtra the guidelines laid down by the court
relating to preliminary inquiry:

“(a) When information relating to the commission of a cognizable offense is received by an

officer in charge of a police station, he would normally register a FIR as required by section
154(1) of the code.

(b) If the information received indicates the necessity for further inquiry, preliminary
inquiry may be conducted.

(c) Where the source of information is of doubtful reliability i.e. an anonymous complaint,
the officer in charge of the police station may conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain the
correctness of the information.

(d) Preliminary inquiry must be expeditious and as far as possible it must be discreet.
(e) Preliminary inquiry is not restarted only to cases where the accused are public servants
or doctors or professionals holding top positions. In which case preliminary inquiry is
necessary will depend on facts and circumstances of each case.”

In the second part of this paper, I argue that this Judgement is against the mandate of Article
21. I argue that a mandatory duty of registering FIR should not be cast upon a Police officer. I
argue that such an interpretation of the statute would harmonize two extreme positions viz. the
proposition that the moment the complaint disclosing ingredients of a cognizable offense is
lodged, the police officer must register an FIR without any scrutiny whatsoever is an extreme
proposition and is contrary to the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, similarly,
the other extreme point of view is that the police officer must investigate the case substantially
before registering an FIR. Guidelines laid down by Kalpana Kutty v. State of
Maharashtra should be followed. 

In the case of Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi the Supreme

Court held that Article 21 as interpreted in Maneka Gandhi’s case provides that a procedure
while depriving a person his life or personal liberty should be fair, reasonable, just and should
not be arbitrary. The court has the constitutional power of judicial review whenever there is a
deprivation of life or personal liberty by an unjust procedure. 

The consequences of a criminal case on the accused have far-reaching consequences. Though

the accused may be innocent, he is subjected to psychological anxiety, social stigma and
probable economic impairment till proven innocent. Even, if he is guilty, delay shakes his
confidence in the system of criminal justice and makes him cynical. The impact of this drama
does not confine itself to the accused but extends to his dependants who may be subject to
undue suffering. Worse is the effect-of delay on complaint or victim to whose traumatic
suffering the system seems to be heartless. It is a greater paradox that injustice is being done to
them in the process of justice. 

In Moti Ram v. State of M.P. Krishna Iyer, J. opined that there are grave consequences of pre-
trial detention. He observed that the psychological and physical deprivation of jail life a
defendant has to go through even though he is presumed innocent is worse than that of a
convicted defendant. He explains that jailed defendant loses his job if he has one and is
prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defence. Equally important, the burden
of his detention frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his family. 
In the case of State Of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Nazrul Islam, the Supreme Court ruled that any
person facing or convicted of a criminal offense cannot be considered suitable for a
government appointment. To be considered eligible, a person should either have no charges
pending against them or have been acquitted of these charges by the court. However, this
acquittal must not be out of a compromise between the accused and the victim, or due to the
witnesses in the case turning hostile.

Under Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967, the passport authority can refuse a foreign visa
to any applicant if-

 In the preceding 5 years, they have been convicted of an offense of moral turpitude
and been sentenced to more than two years’ imprisonment.
 Criminal proceedings are pending against them in India.
 A summons to the court, warrant for arrest or order prohibiting departure from
India has been issued against them.

It is a crying shame upon our adjudicatory system which keeps men in jails for years on end
without a trial.In many cases trials do not commence for as long as a period as three to four
years after the accused was remitted to judicial custody. In several cases the time spent by the
accused in jail before the commencement of trial exceeds the maximum punishment which can
be awarded to them even if they are found guilty of offenses charged against them. The mental
torture and anxiety suffered by an accused for a long length of time is to be treated as sufficient
punishment inflicted on him. Owing to the prolonged pendency of a case, individuals may
suffer in many and different ways. In many cases, the accused is the head of a family and is the
only breadwinner; his responsibility is also towards the large family left behind him. It is not
only the accused but also other members of his family who suffer because of delays in the
trial.If his family is affected in no other way, it will suffer at least from social stigma due to the
arrest of the accused during the trial and also from the loss of income during this period. They
are likely to be forced to borrow money to run the family and also to defend the defendant. 

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) had released a report called ‘Prison Statistics
India 2015’ which had stated the overcrowding of prisons as the biggest problem the prisoners
have to face. The occupancy rate of these prisons was at an all India level of 114.4 per cent. This
results in grave problems to prisoners such as lack of sanitation and hygiene and lack of sleep.
This is against the human rights of the prisoners. 
Another disturbing fact the report states is that sixty-seven per cent of people in prisons are
under trials i.e. people that are not convicted of any crime and are facing trial in a court of law.
On an average, every day four people die in prison. Seventy per cent of the convicts are
illiterate. 

In an another report by the Delhi Government’s Central Jail, the occupancy in the year 2019
has increased to 174.89%. If we break down this figure, there are atleast 82.02 % people who
are under-trials. Since it has been established that the consequences of an FIR has serious
consequences on accused, the Mandatory registration of FIR will make things even worst for
the prisons in our country. If we analyse the data above, we can understand that in Indian
Prison system the under trials are more than the convicts. This is very worrisome and it should
be touched upon by the legislature.

Conclusion
Therefore I conclude that a delicate balance has to be maintained between the interest of the
society and protecting the liberty of an individual. Criminal procedural law has to embody
principles of natural justice and the constitutional guarantees must be safeguarded. A balance
has to be struck between speedy trial and fair trial and the principles of natural justice cannot
be compromised with in order to achieve speedy dispensation of justice. Liberty of an
individual has to be zealously guarded by the law. Detention for even a single minute would
amount to an invasion of liberty. Civil liberties cannot be jeopardized unless sufficient grounds
exist for doing so. As I have highlighted the effects of a criminal case on the accused it is
imperative to follow guidelines laid down by the Bombay High Court in Kalpana Kutty v. State
of Maharashtra. 

Also, the position held by the three judge bench of Lalita Kumari v. Govt of UP is a correct legal
position and it should be revisited.