LALITA KUMARI V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. (2014) 2 SCC 1

Court Name & Bench:-

Supreme Court of India, Constitutional Bench of Five Judges

Bench: Chief Justice P. Sathasivam, and Justices B.S. Chauhan, Ranjana Prakash Desai, Ranjan Gogoi, and S.A. Bobde.

Date of Judgement:-

12 November 2013 (reported in 2014)

Parties Involved

• Petitioner/Appellant: Lalita Kumari, a minor girl represented through her father.
• Respondents: Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, including police officials accused of failing to register a First Information Report (FIR).

FACTS OF THE CASE:-

The case arose when the father of the petitioner, Lalita Kumari, lodged a complaint with the police in Ghaziabad alleging that his minor daughter had been kidnapped. Despite receiving the complaint, the police refused to register a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Instead, they conducted a preliminary inquiry, delaying the initiation of investigation. Aggrieved by this inaction, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, arguing that the failure to register an FIR violated statutory obligations under Section 154 CrPC and infringed the fundamental rights to equality and life under Articles 14 and 21. Initially, the matter was heard by a division bench, but owing to conflicting precedents regarding whether FIR registration was mandatory or discretionary, the issue was referred to a five-judge constitutional bench to authoritatively settle the law.

ISSUES RAISED

The Court considered the following legal questions:

1. Whether registration of FIR under Section 154 CrPC is mandatory when information discloses commission of a cognizable offence.
2. Whether the police officer has discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR.
3. What are the legal consequences of failure to register FIR despite disclosure of a cognizable offence.
4. Whether exceptions exist where preliminary inquiry is permissible prior to FIR registration.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Arguments by the Petitioner

• Section 154(1) CrPC uses the word “shall”, which imposes a mandatory duty upon the police to register an FIR whenever information relating to a cognizable offence is disclosed.[1]
• Mandatory registration is essential to protect victims’ rights and ensure accountability of the police. Discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry would enable corruption and arbitrariness.
• Reliance was placed on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, which emphasised mandatory registration of FIR as the foundation of investigation.[2]
• Non-registration deprives victims of remedies and infringes Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.[3]

Arguments by the Respondent

• Automatic registration could result in frivolous, vexatious, or malicious complaints, causing harassment of innocent persons.[4]
• Police must retain discretion to conduct preliminary inquiry to ascertain veracity, particularly in sensitive disputes such as matrimonial cases, commercial dealings, or medical negligence.
• A strict rule of mandatory registration would overwhelm the already burdened criminal justice system.
• Reliance was placed on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi AIR 1964 SC 221, where limited inquiry before registration was recognised.[5]

JUDGMENT / FINAL DECISION

The Supreme Court held that registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Police officers cannot refuse registration on the ground that the information is not credible or requires verification.

Key directions included:

1. Mandatory FIR: If information discloses a cognizable offence, FIR must be registered immediately.
2. Preliminary Inquiry Exceptions: Preliminary inquiry is permissible only in specific categories of cases, such as matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption, and cases involving abnormal delay in reporting.
3. Time Frame: Preliminary inquiry, where permitted, must be completed within seven days, and the officer must record reasons in writing.
4. Accountability: Failure to register FIR attracts departmental action and may invite contempt of court proceedings.
5. Complainant’s Remedy: If FIR is not registered, the complainant may approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC or seek recourse from the Magistrate.

The appeal was accordingly allowed, and directions were issued to enforce compliance uniformly.

LEGAL REASONING / RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Statutory Interpretation of Section 154 CrPC
   • The Court emphasised that Section 154(1) CrPC uses the expression “shall”, which leaves no discretion to the police once information disclosing a cognizable offence is received.[6]
   • The credibility or reliability of the information is irrelevant at this stage; such evaluation is part of investigation, not pre-registration.
2. Purpose of FIR
   • The FIR is the foundation of criminal proceedings, aimed at setting the process in motion, preventing fabrication, and preserving evidence.[7]
   • Delayed registration allows manipulation and weakens investigation integrity.
3. Balancing Victims’ Rights and Abuse Concerns
   • While acknowledging the possibility of frivolous complaints, the Court highlighted safeguards such as power to close investigations under Section 173 CrPC and inherent powers of High Courts under Section 482 CrPC.[8]
   • Thus, discretion at the pre-FIR stage is neither necessary nor legally permissible.

4. Constitutional Dimensions
   • Refusal to register FIR violates Articles 14 and 21 by depriving victims of equality before law and protection of life and liberty.[9]
   • Mandatory FIR enhances protection for vulnerable groups, including women and children, against police inaction.
5. Precedents Considered
   • Bhajan Lal underscored mandatory FIR registration, while Bhagwant Kishore Joshi suggested limited scope for inquiry.
   • The Court harmonised these by mandating FIR in all cognizable cases, with narrow exceptions for preliminary inquiry.[10]

Ratio Decidendi: Registration of FIR under Section 154 CrPC is mandatory where information discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Police officers cannot conduct preliminary inquiry in such cases, except for limited categories expressly recognised by the Court.

CONCLUSION:-

The judgment in Lalita Kumari is a landmark in Indian criminal law, reinforcing victims’ rights and ensuring police accountability. By resolving conflicting precedents, it established binding principles on FIR registration.

Impact:

• Strengthened the rule of law by eliminating arbitrary police discretion.
• Improved access to justice for victims, particularly in cases of sexual offences, kidnapping, and corruption.
• Balanced concerns of misuse by permitting preliminary inquiry in narrowly defined situations.
• Has been consistently followed in subsequent jurisprudence, making it a cornerstone of criminal procedure.

Critically, while the decision greatly advances victims’ rights, systemic challenges persist, including police reluctance, case backlog, and misuse through false complaints. Nevertheless, the balance struck is both pragmatic and necessary for upholding constitutional guarantees.

Reference(S):

[1] Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, s 154(1).

[2] State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

[3] Constitution of India, arts 14 and 21.

[4] Respondent submissions in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC

[5] State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi AIR 1964 SC 221.

[6] Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1 [para 28].

[7] ibid [para 31]

[8] Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, ss 173 and 482.

[9] Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1 [para 107]

[10] ibid [paras 111–113].