Supreme Court Holds FIR Must Be Registered If Information Prima Facie Discloses Cognizable Offence; No Blanket Pre‑FIR Inquiry Directed

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale heard a criminal appeal by a retired IAS officer challenging the Gujarat High Court’s refusal to direct authorities to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering any further FIRs arising out of actions taken in his official capacity. The appeal arose from successive FIRs registered since 2010 alleging irregularities in land allotments during the appellant’s tenure as Collector of Kachchh.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the principle that registration of an FIR was mandatory under Section 154 of the CrPC where the information received prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence, and that no preliminary inquiry was permissible in such cases. The Court noted the need to balance societal interests and individual liberty but held that the statutory scheme required police to register FIRs when cognizable offences were made out. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: 120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. 120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. 120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.” The Court also reiterated that “It is true that a delicate balance has to be maintained between the interest of the society and protecting the liberty of an individual,” language drawn from its earlier discussion.

Background The appellant, Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma, a retired IAS officer who served as Collector of Kachchh between 2003 and 2006, faced multiple FIRs relating to alleged abuse of official position, corrupt practices and financial irregularities in land allotments; the first FIR dated to 2010 and others followed. He approached the Gujarat High Court under Articles 14, 20, 21, 22 and 226 seeking a writ of mandamus to compel a preliminary inquiry before registration of any further FIRs, contending successive FIRs were mala fide and violated his rights to liberty and fair process. The State opposed the petition, relying on Section 154 CrPC and submitting that police were obliged to register FIRs where cognizable offences were disclosed; it warned that a pre‑FIR hearing would grant undue protection to accused public servants.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that a preliminary inquiry was warranted only where the information did not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence; where clear allegations of corruption and abuse of office existed, police had no discretion to withhold FIR registration. The Supreme Court, after hearing Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal for the appellant and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the State, upheld the High Court’s approach. The Court observed that Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh remained authoritative: mandatory registration under Section 154 applied where cognizable offences were disclosed, while preliminary inquiry had a limited role. The bench found no basis to grant a blanket pre‑FIR protection or to rewrite CrPC procedures, and held that allegations of mala fide registration or harassment could be examined during investigation and trial or by invoking remedies such as quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC and bail applications. The appeal was dismissed, with liberty preserved to pursue available legal remedies.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 350 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.3154 of 2024) Case Title: Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India