The Supreme Court has clarified that the 2014 Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh ruling does not impose an absolute requirement for a preliminary inquiry before the registration of a First Information Report (FIR). Instead, it reaffirmed the principle that police must register an FIR when information prima facie suggests a cognizable offence.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale made these observations while rejecting a bail plea from former Gujarat IAS officer Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma, who argued that FIRs against him should be preceded by a mandatory preliminary inquiry. Sharma is facing charges related to an alleged illegal land allotment case in Kutch.
The Court underscored that a preliminary inquiry is only necessary when the initial information does not clearly indicate a cognizable offence. However, in cases where allegations meet that threshold, law enforcement has no discretion to delay FIR registration through an inquiry process.
Dismissing Sharma’s plea, the Court stated that issuing a blanket direction to prevent FIR registrations without a preliminary inquiry would contradict legal provisions and amount to judicial overreach. The Gujarat High Court had earlier ruled against Sharma’s contention, emphasizing that his allegations—centered on misuse of official position and corruption—clearly fell within the scope of cognizable offences.
The Supreme Court further noted that concerns over multiple FIRs being filed against Sharma could be addressed through legal remedies such as seeking quashing under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, applying for bail, or challenging investigative actions in the appropriate legal forum.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal represented the petitioner, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the State.