Author: Yash Suresh Khiste,The Manikchand Pahade Law College, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar, Maharashtra
ABSTRACT
Background:
The case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2013) is a landmark judgment concerning the mandatory registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) in cognizable offenses. It arose due to police inaction in a serious case of child abduction, raising concerns about the discretionary power of the police in registering FIRs and the fundamental rights of citizens seeking justice.
Facts of the Case:
Incident of Kidnapping
The case originated when a minor girl, Lalita Kumari, was allegedly kidnapped. Her father, Suresh Kumari, filed a written complaint at the police station requesting immediate action to recover his daughter.
Police Inaction and Delay
Despite the serious nature of the complaint (kidnapping being a cognizable offense), the police refused to register an FIR. Instead of initiating an investigation, the police conducted a “preliminary inquiry” to verify the allegations, causing unnecessary delay.
Father’s Plea to the Supreme Court
Frustrated by police inaction, Suresh Kumari approached the Supreme Court by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
Key Issues:
Is FIR registration mandatory for cognizable offenses?
Can police conduct a preliminary inquiry before filing an FIR?
What safeguards exist to prevent false cases
He argued that:
The right to access justice was being denied due to police inaction. Under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, it was the duty of the police to register an FIR immediately when a cognizable offense was reported. The refusal to file an FIR violated fundamental rights, particularly Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
Judgement:
The Supreme Court of India, in its landmark judgment delivered on November 12, 2013, addressed the long-standing issue of police discretion in FIR registration and provided clarity on the procedure to be followed in cases involving cognizable offenses.
FIR Registration is Mandatory for Cognizable Offenses
The Court held that under Section 154 of the CrPC (now Section 173 of BNSS, 2023), police must register an FIR immediately if the complaint discloses a cognizable offense. No discretion is allowed to police officers in such cases.
Preliminary Inquiry is NOT Required for Most Cognizable Offenses
The Court ruled that a preliminary inquiry should NOT be conducted before filing an FIR, except in certain exceptional cases (explained below).
Exceptional Cases Where Preliminary Inquiry May Be Conducted
In certain cases, where the allegations do not immediately disclose a cognizable offense, the police may conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR. The Court provided examples of such exceptional cases, including:
•Matrimonial disputes
•Medical negligence cases
•Commercial offenses
•Corruption cases
Cases where there is a delay in filing the complaint
Time Limit for Preliminary Inquiry
If a preliminary inquiry is conducted, it must be completed within 7 days. The police must record the reasons for conducting such an inquiry in the general diary.
Failure to Register FIR is Punishable
If a police officer refuses to register an FIR for a cognizable offense, they may face disciplinary action and even prosecution under applicable laws. This ensures police accountability and prevents misuse of discretion.
Preliminary Inquiry is Not Required in Heinous Crimes
The Court explicitly stated that for heinous crimes such as murder, rape, kidnapping, or dowry death, an FIR must be registered immediately without any preliminary inquiry.
TO THE POINT
The Supreme Court of India, in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2013), ruled that registration of an FIR is mandatory when a cognizable offense is disclosed. This decision aimed to ensure police accountability and prevent inaction. With the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, replacing the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, the principle of mandatory FIR registration remains integral, reinforcing citizens’ rights.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
Cognizable Offense – An offense where police can arrest without prior magistrate approval.
Non-Cognizable Offense – An offense requiring prior magistrate approval before arrest.
Preliminary Inquiry – A limited inquiry conducted before registering an FIR in certain cases.
Judicial Precedent – A prior legal case establishing a binding rule for future cases.
Rule of Law – The principle that all individuals are subject to the law.
THE PROOF
The case began when Lalita Kumari, a minor, was kidnapped, and the local police refused to register an FIR. Her father moved the Supreme Court under Article 32, challenging the police’s discretionary power in registering FIRs. The Supreme Court’s ruling eliminated ambiguity in Section 154 of CrPC, which is now replaced by Section 173 of BNSS, 2023.
CASE LAWS
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) – Laid down guidelines for police discretion.
Bhaskaran v. Sebastian (1959) – Defined police responsibility in investigating cognizable offenses.
Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (2007) – Emphasized mandatory FIR registration in corruption cases.
CONCLUSION:
The ruling in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2013) remains a cornerstone of criminal law, now codified in BNSS, 2023. By making FIR registration mandatory, the judgment prevents police inaction and strengthens citizens’ rights to justice under the Rule of Law.
FAQS
Is FIR registration still mandatory under BNSS, 2023?
Yes, Section 173 of BNSS makes FIR registration mandatory for cognizable offenses.
Can police conduct a preliminary inquiry before filing an FIR?
Only in exceptional cases such as matrimonial disputes, commercial offenses, and medical negligence.
What action can be taken if police refuse to register an FIR?
The affected party can approach the Superintendent of Police or file a writ petition under Article 226 in the High Court.
Does BNSS, 2023, allow digital FIR registration?
Yes, BNSS enables online FIR filing, ensuring accessibility.
