FIR Registration Is Not Optional When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Supreme Court Reiterates in CBI Officers Case

“The police is duty-bound under Section 154 CrPC to register an FIR if a cognizable offence is made out — credibility or genuineness of the allegations is not a condition precedent” In a judgment with far-reaching implications for police accountability and protection of citizens’ rights, the Supreme Court of India on September 10, 2025, reinforced the mandatory nature of FIR registration when a prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed, regardless of the status or designation of the accused. This declaration came in the case, where senior officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) were accused of abuse of authority, fabrication of records, and intimidation.

The Court categorically rejected arguments seeking to block FIR registration on procedural or institutional grounds, reiterating the settled legal position that police cannot refuse to register an FIR simply because the accused are public servants or the allegations are inconvenient to an institution.

“The police cannot refuse FIR registration merely because the complaint implicates investigating officers”

The judgment arises from writ petitions filed by Vijay Aggarwal and Sheesh Ram Saini, who alleged that CBI officers Vinod Kumar Pandey and Neeraj Kumar misused their official authority, illegally summoned individuals, forged seizure records, and tried to intimidate complainants into withdrawing allegations. Despite their complaints filed in 2001 and 2004, the Delhi Police refused to act, apparently reluctant to investigate officers of the CBI.

This inaction forced the complainants to approach the Delhi High Court under Article 226, which, after scrutinizing the allegations and supporting material, directed the registration of FIRs and ordered investigation by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police.

The High Court’s directive was challenged before the Supreme Court, where the appellants — senior CBI officers — argued that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering registration of an FIR when no prior inquiry established a cognizable offence.

The Supreme Court firmly rejected this argument, holding:

“If the information provided to the police or the preliminary report discloses a commission of a cognizable offence, the police is duty bound under Section 154 Cr.P.C. to register an FIR without any delay.”

The Court clarified that the genuineness or credibility of the information is irrelevant at the FIR stage, quoting from earlier rulings including Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., where it had been consistently held that non-registration of FIR amounts to dereliction of statutory duty.

“No preliminary inquiry is required before registering an FIR if the offence disclosed is cognizable”

The Court also addressed the attempt by the appellants to rely on a CBI internal preliminary inquiry report, which claimed that no offence was made out. The Supreme Court was unequivocal in rejecting this as a valid defence:

“The report of the CBI at best is a preliminary enquiry report submitted before the registration of the FIR. However, such an enquiry is not ordinarily contemplated in law before registration of FIR.”

The Court emphasized that the registration of FIR cannot be made contingent on internal reports, opinions, or institutional preferences, especially when the accused are high-ranking officials. Reaffirming the law laid down in Lalita Kumari, the Court held:

“Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 Cr.P.C. if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry before FIR is permissible in such a situation.”

It further stated that the preliminary report of the CBI could be looked into by the Investigating Officer, but not treated as conclusive, and must not be allowed to override the duty imposed by Section 154 CrPC.

“Alternative remedy is no excuse when the State refuses to act”

The appellants also objected that the complainants should have first approached the Magistrate instead of filing writ petitions. However, the Court rejected this too, observing that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar when the State machinery refuses to perform its statutory duty. Citing the precedents in Sakiri Vasu and Anurag Bhatnagar, the Court observed:

“Alternative remedy cannot be a substitute in law for refusing to register a case when the complaint of the citizen makes it a cognizable offence.”

This reaffirms that citizens have the right to judicial recourse when the police abdicate their responsibilities, and that the constitutional courts are empowered to step in and ensure justice is not denied due to bureaucratic hesitations.

“Refusal to register FIR when allegations are grave corrodes public confidence in justice”

The Court observed that the alleged offences were not mere technical lapses but acts involving deliberate misuse of power. The seizure of documents without a valid memo, the summoning of a complainant in violation of bail, and alleged coercion and intimidation clearly pointed to serious misconduct.

“The High Court opined that prima facie, a cognizable offence is made out against the two officers, that too upon elaborate consideration of the preliminary inquiry report of the Joint Director of CBI.”

Dismissing fears of premature prejudgment, the Supreme Court clarified that the opinion of the High Court was merely prima facie, and the Investigating Officer retained full discretion to file a chargesheet or a closure report after a proper probe.

 “FIR Is the Gateway to Justice — It Cannot Be Denied When Law Demands Its Registration”

In conclusion, the Supreme Court strongly upheld the position that FIR registration is not a matter of discretion but of legal obligation where the information reveals a cognizable offence. It also affirmed that public confidence in the justice system depends on the consistent and impartial application of this principle.

“It would be dichotomy of justice if such an offence is allowed to go uninvestigated particularly when there is involvement of the officers on deputation to CBI.”

By affirming the mandatory registration of FIR and discarding procedural shields, the Court has reinstated faith in constitutional remedies and due process, sending a clear signal that legal uniformity must prevail over institutional bias.

Date of Decision: September 10, 2025