TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether an FIR is mandatorily required to be registered when information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; and (ii) whether a preliminary inquiry is permissible before registration of FIR, and if so, in what categories of cases and within what limits.
Issue (i): Whether an FIR is mandatorily required to be registered when information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Analysis: The provision was construed on its plain language. The use of the word "shall", the absence of qualifying words such as "reasonable" or "credible" before "information", the statutory scheme of Chapter XII, and the historical evolution of the provision all pointed to a duty to record the first information that discloses a cognizable offence. The Court relied on the settled line of authority holding that the police cannot test the truth, reliability, or credibility of such information at the stage of registration. The FIR was treated as the starting point of investigation and as an important safeguard against manipulation, delay, embellishment, and burking of crime.
Conclusion: Registration of FIR is mandatory where the information discloses a cognizable offence, and the police officer has no discretion to refuse registration on the ground of doubt about veracity.
Issue (ii): Whether a preliminary inquiry is permissible before registration of FIR, and if so, in what categories of cases and within what limits
Analysis: A preliminary inquiry was held impermissible to test the truthfulness of information that already discloses a cognizable offence, but permissible only where the information does not clearly disclose such offence and an initial verification is necessary to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is made out. The Court recognised limited categories where such inquiry may be justified, including matrimonial or family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases, and cases involving abnormal delay in lodging the complaint. The inquiry was directed to be time-bound, ordinarily not exceeding seven days, and the reasons for closure or delay were required to be recorded in the General Diary.
Conclusion: Preliminary inquiry is confined to the limited purpose of ascertaining whether a cognizable offence is disclosed and cannot be used to assess the truth or credibility of an already cognizable complaint; in specified categories, such inquiry may be undertaken within a short, recorded time-frame.
Final Conclusion: The law was settled in favour of compulsory registration of FIR on disclosure of a cognizable offence, while preserving only a narrow and regulated scope for preliminary inquiry in exceptional situations before such disclosure is confirmed.
Ratio Decidendi: When information furnished to the officer in charge of a police station discloses a cognizable offence, registration of FIR is obligatory, and the police cannot refuse registration by assessing credibility or truthfulness at that stage; preliminary inquiry is permissible only to determine whether the information itself reveals a cognizable offence.
TaxTMI 
