FIR Must Be Registered When Cognizable Offense Is Disclosed—Preliminary Inquiry Not a Right: Supreme Court

Courts Cannot Rewrite the Law to Protect the Accused—Judicial Overreach Is Impermissible - Supreme Court of India dismissed the plea of retired IAS officer Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma, who sought a mandatory preliminary inquiry before the registration of any FIR against him. Sharma, who had served as Collector of Kachchh District, Gujarat, from 2003 to 2006, faced multiple FIRs for alleged irregularities in land allotments, including abuse of official position, corrupt practices, and financial misconduct.

The Court held that when a complaint prima facie discloses a cognizable offense, police authorities have no discretion to delay FIR registration or conduct a preliminary inquiry unless permitted under specific circumstances. Citing its landmark ruling in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1, the Court observed: "The registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the CrPC if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offense—there is no discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry unless required under special circumstances."

Sharma had approached the Gujarat High Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the State authorities to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering any new FIR against him. He contended that multiple FIRs were being strategically lodged to keep him in judicial custody, and that this violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The High Court rejected his plea on January 31, 2024, ruling that: "When a complaint discloses a cognizable offense, the police have no discretion to refuse or delay registration of an FIR under Section 154 of the CrPC. The demand for a pre-FIR inquiry in every such case is legally untenable."

The High Court also held that granting a blanket protection in the form of a mandatory preliminary inquiry would amount to judicial legislation, which courts cannot undertake. Aggrieved by this decision, Sharma approached the Supreme Court.

"Can Multiple FIRs Be Filed for Similar Allegations? Is This a Violation of Article 21?"

Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Sharma, argued that: "The pattern of FIRs being registered immediately after securing bail clearly suggests a mala fide intention. The appellant has been subjected to a systematic abuse of process, with successive cases being registered to ensure his continued incarceration."

Sibal urged that corruption allegations arising from official actions should not be automatically treated as criminal offenses without a preliminary inquiry, as per the principles laid down in Lalita Kumari. He further argued: "The absence of a preliminary inquiry before the registration of FIRs in corruption cases violates the principles of fairness and due process enshrined in the Constitution. Repeated FIRs, filed in a sequential manner, have stripped the appellant of his right to liberty."

Opposing the appeal, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the State of Gujarat, stated: "The appellant is seeking blanket immunity from prosecution under the garb of procedural safeguards. The law does not provide for a pre-FIR hearing for an accused, nor does it permit a preliminary inquiry in cases where clear allegations of corruption and abuse of power exist."

The Solicitor General further argued that the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lalita Kumari does not mandate preliminary inquiry in all cases, particularly not in cases involving corruption or public office abuse. He warned that: "Granting the relief sought by the appellant would create a dangerous precedent, allowing public servants accused of serious offenses to claim immunity simply by demanding a pre-FIR hearing."

Supreme Court Affirms Lalita Kumari Principles—FIR Must Be Registered Without Delay

After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the legal position established in Lalita Kumari, stating: "Although preliminary inquiry may be required in certain cases, such as medical negligence, family disputes, and commercial matters, there is no such requirement when clear allegations of corruption or abuse of power are made."

The Court rejected Sharma’s plea, holding that: "In cases involving abuse of official position and corrupt practices, the police authorities are duty-bound to register an FIR and investigate. The demand for a pre-FIR inquiry in every such case is legally untenable."

The Court also ruled that successive FIRs do not automatically amount to abuse of process, observing: "The appellant’s claim that successive FIRs were registered with an ulterior motive is a matter that can be addressed during investigation and trial, not through a blanket judicial order."

"Judges Cannot Rewrite the Law—Courts Must Follow the Statutory Framework"

The Supreme Court strongly opposed the idea of creating additional procedural safeguards that do not exist in the CrPC, ruling that: "Courts cannot introduce procedural conditions that the legislature has not provided. The CrPC does not grant an accused the right to be heard before FIR registration, nor does it mandate preliminary inquiry in corruption cases."

Rejecting the argument that multiple FIRs violated fundamental rights, the Court emphasized: "Legal remedies exist—if an FIR is malicious, the accused may seek quashing under Section 482 CrPC, apply for bail, or challenge malicious prosecution. However, a judicially imposed pre-FIR inquiry is not a remedy available under the law."

Appeal Dismissed—Retired IAS Officer’s Plea Rejected

Concluding its judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed Sharma’s appeal, ruling: "In view of the settled legal position, we find no merit in the appellant’s plea. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the appellant from availing any other legal remedies in respect of pending or future FIRs."

The ruling sets an important precedent, making it clear that public servants accused of corruption cannot claim procedural protection beyond what is already provided in law. The Court reaffirmed that mandatory FIR registration is the rule, and preliminary inquiry is the exception—not the other way around.

With this judgment, the Supreme Court has once again reinforced the principle that when a cognizable offense is alleged, police authorities have a statutory obligation to register an FIR. The ruling provides clarity on the limited scope of preliminary inquiry and ensures that procedural safeguards are not misused to obstruct criminal investigations.

By dismissing the plea for a preliminary inquiry in every corruption case, the Court has upheld the integrity of the Criminal Procedure Code and the rule of law, preventing the accused from seeking undue advantage through procedural loopholes.

This ruling will have far-reaching implications for public servants, corporate fraud cases, and high-profile corruption investigations, ensuring that law enforcement agencies remain empowered to investigate serious offenses without unnecessary procedural roadblocks.

Date of decision: 17/03/2025