Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

FIR Registration Mandatory for Cognizable Offences -  preliminary inquiry not permissible:  Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling today, the Supreme Court of India reiterated the mandatory nature of First Information Report (FIR) registration under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for cognizable offences. The bench, comprising Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta, set aside a previous High Court order dismissing a writ petition seeking the registration of an offence.

The case involved the appellant, Sindhu Janak Nagargoje, who had filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking directions to register an offence related to the severe assault and subsequent death of her brother. The appellant’s plea was dismissed by the High Court. However, the Supreme Court, citing the landmark case of “Lalita Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.” (2014) 2 SCC 1, emphasized the importance of registering FIRs for cognizable offences without any preliminary inquiry.

The bench held that, The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.” The court further highlighted that the scope of preliminary inquiry is to ascertain whether the information reveals a cognizable offence or not and not to verify its veracity.

The judgment underlines the need for time-bound preliminary inquiries, not exceeding 7 days, and emphasizes that all information related to cognizable offences must be meticulously reflected in the police station’s records. The court also directed that erring officers failing to register FIRs for cognizable offences should face appropriate action.

This ruling reaffirms the significance of safeguarding personal liberty through prompt FIR registration for cognizable offences. The Supreme Court, allowing the appeal, directed that the concerned authorities proceed with the complaints filed by the appellant in accordance with the law.

Legal experts have hailed this decision as a milestone in ensuring swift action and accountability in cases involving cognizable offences. The judgment reinforces the principle that the registration of FIRs must be carried out promptly, based on the nature of the offence, without unnecessary delays or preliminary inquiries.

The Supreme Court’s ruling sets a precedent in upholding the rights of victims and complainants and ensuring a just and efficient legal process in cases of cognizable offences.

Date of Decision: AUGUST 08, 2023 

SINDHU JANAK NAGARGOJE vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Latest Legal News