Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-011740-011740 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 10502/2019 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal procedure; constitutional writ; inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that when information or complaint discloses a cognizable offence against public servants, registration of FIR under Section 154 CrPC is mandatory and cannot be blocked by an internal or preliminary inquiry report. High Courts, in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, may direct FIR registration if prima facie cognizable offences appear from the material. However, such court-recorded prima facie findings do not bind the investigating officer, who must conduct a de novo probe. Directions for investigation may be tailored (e.g., choice of investigating agency and rank of officer) but cannot oust the mandatory FIR-registration regime. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Two petitions under Article 226/Section 482 CrPC sought directions to register FIRs against two public-servant officers on deputation to CBI for alleged offences under various IPC sections. A preliminary inquiry by a Joint Director found no cognizable offences. The High Court directed Delhi Police to register FIRs, held that prima facie cognizable offences were made out and appointed an ACP-rank officer for investigation. Appeals challenged those directions and maintainability of Letters Patent Appeals; Supreme Court heard merits and upheld FIR-registration direction with modifications. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Supreme Court confirmed that exoneratory preliminary inquiry reports cannot preclude mandatory FIR registration under Section 154 CrPC when prima facie cognizable offences are disclosed.
- High Courts may exercise constitutional (Article 226) or inherent (Section 482 CrPC) jurisdiction to direct FIR registration against public servants, even during or after preliminary inquiries.
- Any court-recorded prima facie finding does not bind the investigating officer, who must conduct a fresh, unbiased probe and may consider the inquiry report as part of investigation but not as conclusive.
- Investigation against officers on deputation to central agencies must be assigned to an officer of appropriate seniority (not below ACP rank) within a reasonable timeframe (Court suggested three months).
- Delay in challenging High Court orders may be condoned if appellants have bona fide pursued interim remedies, but no deliberate or willful delay exists.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Jurisdiction to Intervene: High Court’s power under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC to direct FIR registration when no alternative remedy is efficacious.
- Mandatory FIR Registration: Section 154 CrPC obliges police to register FIR if information discloses a prima facie cognizable offence; genuineness not a precondition (Ramesh Kumari).
- Preliminary Inquiry Non-Bar: Post-Lalita Kumari, internal or preliminary inquiries are non-conclusive and cannot delay or prevent FIR registration.
- Prima Facie Findings: Courts may record prima facie opinions but must allow the Investigating Officer to conduct de novo investigation without being bound by court’s observations.
- Assignment of Investigation: Investigation to be conducted by Delhi Police by an ACP-rank officer; Special Cell direction modified accordingly.
- Remedial Directions: Appellants to cooperate, non-coercive steps unless custodial interrogation warranted; investigation to conclude within three months.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellants (CBI Officers)
- Complaints do not disclose cognizable offences; barred by Section 197 CrPC and Section 140 Delhi Police Act.
- Preliminary inquiry by Joint Director CBI exonerated them; High Court ought to have relied on it.
- High Court lacked jurisdiction to direct FIR registration without following procedural safeguards.
- No material against the second officer; misapplication of power.
- Directing Special Cell (anti-terror unit) was inappropriate.
Respondents (Complainants & State)
- High Court correctly found prima facie cognizable offences based on complaint averments.
- Section 154 CrPC mandates FIR registration when prima facie offences are made out.
- Preliminary inquiry report is not binding; internal inquiries are not substitutes for FIRs (Lalita Kumari).
- Investigation by competent ACP-rank officer ensures fairness.
Factual Background
Two private complaints (dated 05.07.2001 and 23.02.2004) accused two CBI officers of abusing official position and other cognizable offences under IPC. A CBI preliminary inquiry (26.04.2005) reported no offence. High Court (26.06.2006) directed Delhi Police to register FIRs and investigate. Division Bench dismissed Letters Patent Appeals for maintainability. Supreme Court condoned delay, heard merits, and upheld FIR-registration direction with modifications.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 154 CrPC: mandatory FIR registration upon receipt of cognizable offence information; genuineness not tested.
- Section 482 CrPC & Article 226: inherent and constitutional jurisdiction to secure fundamental rights; direct investigative action when necessary.
- Section 197 CrPC & Section 140 Delhi Police Act: raised but held inapplicable at FIR-registration stage.
- Delhi Police Act: clarified investigation agency and officer rank, modifying High Court’s Special Cell direction.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissent; both judges concurred in the reasoning and directions.
Procedural Innovations
- Permitting consideration of a preliminary inquiry report as part of investigation without treating it as binding.
- Directing assignment of investigation to a specific rank (ACP) in Delhi Police to ensure impartiality.
- Condonation of delay where appellants pursued bona fide interim remedies.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Lalita Kumari (2014), Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma (2025)
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – None
- ⚖️ Split Verdict – No
- 📅 Time-Sensitive – Investigation to conclude within three months under Court direction