Law Maker

Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh

Supreme Court of India · 12 November 2013 · 5 judges

Registration of an FIR under Section 154 CrPC is mandatory when the information discloses a cognizable offence; a limited preliminary inquiry is allowed only to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed, in specified kinds of cases.

Facts

A writ petition under Article 32 was filed on behalf of Lalita Kumari, a minor, through her father, seeking protection after she was kidnapped. A written report given to the police station on 11.05.2008 was not acted on; an FIR was registered only after the Superintendent of Police was approached, and even then no steps were taken to find the girl or arrest the accused. A two-Judge Bench, noticing disparity in how police registered FIRs across the country, issued directions and later referred the question to a larger Bench because of conflicting decisions of the Court. A three-Judge Bench in 2012 found divergent opinions on whether a police officer must register an FIR or may first hold a preliminary inquiry, and referred the matter to a Constitution Bench.

Questions before the Court

  1. Is a police officer bound to register an FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence?
  2. Does the police officer have power to conduct a preliminary inquiry to test the veracity of the information before registering an FIR?
  3. Is mandatory registration of an FIR consistent with the rights of the accused under Article 21?

What the Court held

  • Section 154(1) is unambiguous and must be read literally. The word 'shall' is mandatory: if information discloses a cognizable offence, the officer has no option but to register an FIR. Reliability, genuineness and credibility of the information are not conditions precedent to registration; they are matters for investigation.
  • The FIR must be recorded in the FIR book under Section 154, not first in the General Diary followed by a preliminary inquiry. To the extent of any inconsistency, Section 154 prevails over Section 44 of the Police Act, 1861.
  • Mandatory registration does not offend Article 21. Registration of an FIR and arrest are different things; safeguards against arbitrary arrest, anticipatory bail, the power under Section 157 not to investigate and closure under Section 173 protect the accused.
  • The CBI Crime Manual is a set of administrative instructions, not a statute, and cannot import preliminary inquiry into the Code. The CBI's powers under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 are protected by Sections 4(2) and 5 of the Code and cannot be equated with those of the State police.
  • If the information does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates need for inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be held only to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed, not to verify veracity. Illustrative categories are matrimonial or family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption, and cases of unexplained delay such as over 3 months.
  • A preliminary inquiry must not exceed 7 days; if it ends in closure, a copy with brief reasons must be given to the informant within one week. Action must be taken against officers who fail to register an FIR, and all information on cognizable offences must be entered in the General Diary.

Why it matters

The Constitution Bench resolves the conflict among earlier decisions by holding that registration of an FIR on information disclosing a cognizable offence is mandatory, while permitting a narrow, time-bound preliminary inquiry in listed kinds of cases only to find out whether a cognizable offence is disclosed. It lays down binding directions on closure reports to informants, General Diary entries and action against officers who refuse to register FIRs.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“Consequently, the condition that is sine qua non for recording an FIR under Section 154 of the Code is that there must be information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence. If any information disclosing a cognizable offence is led before an officer in charge of the police station satisfying the requirement of Section 154(1), the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information. The provision of Section 154 of the Code is mandatory and the concerned officer is duty bound to register the case on the basis of information disclosing a cognizable offence.”
P. Sathasivam, CJIPage 42 of the judgment
“(i) 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. (ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.”
P. Sathasivam, CJIPage 90 of the judgment
“Therefore, conducting an investigation into an offence after registration of FIR under Section 154 of the Code is the "procedure established by law" and, thus, is in conformity with Article 21 of the Constitution.”
P. Sathasivam, CJIPage 68 of the judgment
“While registration of FIR is mandatory, arrest of the accused immediately on registration of FIR is not at all mandatory. In fact, registration of FIR and arrest of an accused person are two entirely different concepts under the law, and there are several safeguards available against arrest.”
P. Sathasivam, CJIPage 81 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Related judgments

Case and bench

Parties
Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.
Case
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68 of 2008, with S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5986 of 2006, S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5200 of 2009, Criminal Appeal No. 1410 of 2011, Criminal Appeal No. 1267 of 2007 and Contempt Petition (C) No. D26722 of 2008
Decided
12 November 2013
Bench
P. Sathasivam, CJI, Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J., Ranjana Prakash Desai, J., Ranjan Gogoi, J., S.A. Bobde, J.
Opinions
Unanimous judgment of the Constitution Bench delivered by P. Sathasivam, CJI and signed by all five judges.

Questions on this case

6 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. A few from free papers:

  1. Question 1 · Landmark Judgments Practice Set 1

    Consider the following statements about the directions in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. (Constitution Bench, 2013), as they now stand: 1. Registration of an FIR under Section 154 CrPC is mandatory if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. 2. Where a preliminary inquiry is permissible, its purpose is to verify whether the information received is true. 3. A preliminary inquiry should generally not exceed 15 days, and in exceptional cases, for adequate reasons, six weeks. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    1. A. 1 and 2 only
    2. B. 1 and 3 only
    3. C. 1 only
    4. D. 2 and 3 only
    Show the answer

    B. 1 and 3 only

    Lalita Kumari held that registration of an FIR is mandatory where the information discloses a cognizable offence, and that the scope of a permissible preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity of the information but only to see whether it reveals a cognizable offence, so statement 2 is wrong. The original 7-day limit in direction (vii) was modified by the Court's order of 5 March 2014 to 15 days generally and six weeks in exceptional cases. Section 154 CrPC now corresponds to Section 173 BNSS, whose sub-section (3) separately permits a preliminary enquiry of up to fourteen days, with a DSP's prior permission, for offences punishable with three years or more but less than seven years.

  2. Question 2 · Legal Current Affairs: August 2026

    P's application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 asking the Magistrate to direct an investigation is rejected. P later gives the police information disclosing a cognizable offence on substantially the same allegations, and an FIR is registered. The accused seeks quashing, relying on the earlier rejection. Following Pramod Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh (19 August 2026):

    1. A. the FIR survives only if P had first challenged the rejection in revision before the Court of Session
    2. B. the FIR survives, since a rejection under Section 156(3) decides nothing on merits and is not res judicata
    3. C. the FIR must be quashed unless the Magistrate grants the police fresh leave to register and investigate it
    4. D. the FIR must be quashed, since a rejection under Section 156(3) bars any later FIR on the same or similar allegations
    Show the answer

    B. the FIR survives, since a rejection under Section 156(3) decides nothing on merits and is not res judicata

    In 2026 INSC 887 (Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.) the Court held that an order rejecting a Section 156(3) application is passed at the threshold without adjudication on merits and does not attract res judicata. The police duty to register an FIR flows from Section 154 CrPC, as held in Lalita Kumari, and is not curtailed by the rejection.