Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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