Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

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