Lalita Kumari vs Govt.of U.P. and Ors.
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 06 May 2025 --
- 0 Comments
I. Introduction
The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., delivered a landmark judgment on the interpretation of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with the registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) by the police. The judgment aimed to provide clarity on the mandatory nature of FIR registration and the circumstances under which a preliminary inquiry may be conducted before registering an FIR.
II. Background
The case originated from a petition filed by Lalita Kumari's father under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking protection for his kidnapped daughter. Despite submitting a written report, the police failed to take action, leading to the filing of an FIR. The Supreme Court issued notices to the Union of India, Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories, and Director Generals of Police/Commissioners of Police to ensure immediate registration of FIRs and provide copies to complainants. [Para 2, 3]
III. Conflicting Decisions and Referral to a Constitution Bench
The matter of whether a police officer is obligated to register a case for a cognizable offense was heard by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Due to conflicting decisions on the issue, the bench referred the matter to a larger Constitution Bench for an authoritative judgment. [Para 4, 5]
IV. The Main Issue
The primary question before the Constitution Bench was the interpretation of Section 154 of the CrPC and the consideration of Sections 156 and 157, which deal with the reporting and investigation of cognizable offenses. [Para 6, 7, 8]
V. Arguments Presented
Various counsels representing the Union of India, States, and other parties presented their arguments before the Constitution Bench. The key arguments revolved around the mandatory nature of FIR registration, the scope for preliminary inquiries, the interpretation of the word "information" in Section 154(1), and the safeguards against false implications and arbitrary arrests. [Para 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21]
VI. Legislative Intent and Interpretation of Section 154
The Constitution Bench examined the legislative intent behind Section 154 of the CrPC and the principles of statutory interpretation. The court emphasized the literal rule of interpretation, which focuses on the plain language of the statute. [Para 29, 30, 31, 32, 36, 37, 38]
A. Mandatory Registration of FIR
The court held that Section 154(1) of the CrPC mandates the registration of an FIR if the information given to the police discloses a cognizable offense. The use of the word "shall" in the provision makes it mandatory for the police officer to register the case without questioning the reasonableness or credibility of the information. [Para 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46]
B. Recording of FIR in the FIR Book
The court clarified that the FIR must be recorded in the FIR Book or FIR Register, and not in the General Diary maintained under the Police Act. The FIR Book is a separate register with unique annual serial numbers for each FIR, allowing for strict control and tracking by police officers and courts. [Para 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63]
C. Interpretation of "Information"
The court noted that the word "information" in Section 154(1) is not qualified by "reasonable" or "credible," unlike other sections of the CrPC. This deliberate change in wording indicates that the police officer cannot refuse to record information on the ground of reasonableness or credibility. [Para 64, 65, 66, 67, 68]
VII. Preliminary Inquiry
The court addressed the issue of whether a preliminary inquiry can be conducted before registering an FIR. While acknowledging the arguments in favor of preliminary inquiries, the court held that such inquiries are permissible only to ascertain whether the information discloses a cognizable offense. [Para 70, 71, 72]
A. Exceptions for Preliminary Inquiry
The court recognized certain categories of cases where a preliminary inquiry may be warranted, such as:
• Medical negligence allegations against doctors [Para 21, 52]
• Matrimonial disputes
• Commercial offenses
• Corruption cases
• Cases with abnormal delay in reporting [Para 3]
However, the court emphasized that the preliminary inquiry should be time-bound, not exceeding seven days, and all information related to cognizable offenses must be recorded in the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary. [Para 52]
VIII. Safeguards and Protections
The court addressed concerns regarding the potential misuse of mandatory FIR registration and the rights of the accused.
A. Safeguards against Arbitrary Arrests
The court clarified that the registration of an FIR does not automatically lead to the arrest of the accused. There are safeguards in place, such as the provision for anticipatory bail, to protect the accused from arbitrary arrests. [Para 97, 98, 99]
B. Protections for the Accused
The court highlighted that the Code of Criminal Procedure provides various protections for the accused, including the power of the police to close investigations if there are insufficient grounds. The court emphasized that the registration of an FIR does not necessarily mean that the police must investigate every case mandatorily. [Para 3]
C. Conformity with Article 21
The court held that the mandatory registration of FIRs and the subsequent investigation conform to the "procedure established by law" under Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects the rights of the accused. [Para 76]
IX. Advantages of Mandatory FIR Registration
The court recognized several advantages of mandatory FIR registration, including:
• Ensuring access to justice for victims [Para 88]
• Upholding the rule of law [Para 88]
• Facilitating swift investigation and prevention of crimes [Para 88]
• Reducing manipulation in criminal cases [Para 88]
• Promoting transparency in the criminal justice system [Para 86]
• Enabling judicial oversight [Para 86]
X. Conclusion
The Supreme Court's judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. provided a comprehensive interpretation of Section 154 of the CrPC and clarified the mandatory nature of FIR registration for cognizable offenses. The court struck a balance between the rights of victims and the accused by allowing for limited exceptions for preliminary inquiries in certain cases, while emphasizing the importance of transparency, access to justice, and the rule of law. The judgment aimed to address the prevalent issue of non-registration of FIRs and ensure accountability in the criminal justice system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments