Registration of FIR Is Mandatory Where Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed, No Preliminary Inquiry Permissible: Supreme Court Reiterates In Custodial Torture Case

“The Duty To Register FIR Arises The Moment Information Of Cognizable Offence Is Received—Delay Defeats Justice And Encourages Cover-Ups”: On 21st July 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark ruling reinforcing the constitutional mandate of mandatory registration of FIR in cases of cognizable offences. Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and took strong exception to the refusal to register an FIR in a case involving brutal custodial torture of a serving police constable.

The Supreme Court reiterated the inviolable legal principle that police authorities have no discretion to delay or refuse the registration of an FIR once a cognizable offence is disclosed. The Court categorically held, “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.”

“Lalita Kumari Mandate Is Absolute—The Police Cannot Pick And Choose When To Register FIR”: Supreme Court

Tracing the legal foundation of this principle to the Constitution Bench judgment in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, the Court emphasized that the law does not grant the police any latitude to withhold FIR registration on grounds of verifying the veracity of the complaint or awaiting internal inquiry.

Quoting from Lalita Kumari, the Court observed, “If the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible, etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR.”

In the case before the Court, despite overwhelming medical evidence of grievous custodial injuries, including the mutilation of the victim’s genitalia, the police refused to register the FIR based on a complaint filed by the victim’s wife. Instead, they shielded the accused officers behind a veil of internal inquiry.

The Supreme Court condemned this conduct, stating, “The failure of local police authorities to register an FIR despite clear disclosure of cognizable offences supported by compelling medical evidence constitutes a direct violation of the appellant’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.”

“Preliminary Inquiry Cannot Be A Shield To Avoid Accountability”: Supreme Court Rejects High Court’s Direction For Preliminary Probe

The Supreme Court rebuked the High Court for directing a preliminary inquiry by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kupwara—an officer who was directly linked to the summoning and illegal detention of the victim. The apex court expressed its disapproval in unequivocal terms, observing,

“The High Court committed a grave error in law by failing to exercise the writ jurisdiction and in refusing to apply the mandatory principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari… Instead of ordering immediate registration of FIR, the High Court directed the very same Senior Superintendent of Police… to conduct an inquiry into his own subordinates’ actions, a flagrant violation of natural justice.”

The Supreme Court further observed that in cases involving allegations of custodial torture, permitting a preliminary inquiry was an open invitation to manipulation of evidence and institutional cover-up.

Reaffirming the limited scope of preliminary inquiries, the Court highlighted,

“The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. Custodial torture cases leave no room for such discretionary assessments—medical records themselves speak volumes.”

“Any Delay In FIR Registration Enables Destruction Of Evidence And Erodes Public Confidence”: Court Restores Faith In Rule Of Law

The Court sounded a stern warning about the consequences of non-compliance with the mandate of immediate FIR registration, noting,

“The refusal to register an FIR in such a heinous case of custodial torture encourages a culture of impunity and seriously jeopardises public confidence in the criminal justice system.”

It emphasized that FIR registration was the first step in ensuring the preservation of evidence, witness protection, and safeguarding the integrity of the investigation process.

The Court finally directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to immediately register an FIR based on the complaint of the victim’s wife, observing,

“In cases of custodial torture, the law requires immediate action. This Court cannot be a silent spectator when the system subverts justice through delays and manipulation.”

A Resounding Judicial Reminder: Rule Of Law Prevails Over Institutional Convenience

This ruling comes as a sharp reminder to police authorities and lower courts that convenience, departmental interests, or procedural hesitations cannot trump constitutional obligations. The Supreme Court’s judgment strongly reinforces the principle that in a democracy governed by the rule of law, even the police must bow before the rights of citizens, especially in cases alleging state-sponsored brutality.

By reiterating the non-negotiable mandate of FIR registration, the Court has fortified the foundational principles of access to justice, equal protection before law, and constitutional accountability.

Date of Decision: 21st July 2025