Does the Failure to Register an FIR on Knowledge of a Cognizable Offence Breach Mandatory Police Duty Under Section 154 CrPC?

LawSikho
September 15, 2025
Category: Supreme Court of India

Summary

Category	Data
Court	Supreme Court of India
Case Number	Crl.A. No.-003976-003976 – 2025
Diary Number	25001/2025
Judge Name	HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
Bench	HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
Precedent Value	Binding Authority
Overrules / Affirms	Affirms existing precedent (Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.)
Type of Law	Criminal Procedure (Section 154 CrPC)
Questions of Law	Whether police must mandatorily register an FIR on knowledge of a cognizable offence. Whether courts can direct SIT formation and disciplinary action for dereliction.
Ratio Decidendi	Under Section 154 CrPC, once information discloses a cognizable offence, registration of an FIR is mandatory; no preliminary inquiry is permissible to avoid FIR. Police knowledge of a medico-legal case and hospital admission of an assault victim obliges them to record the informant’s statement and register the offence without delay. Failure by both station-in-charge and Superintendent of Police to act on written complaints constitutes patent dereliction of duty, warranting court-mandated SIT investigation and disciplinary proceedings.
Judgments Relied Upon	Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, (2025) INSC 410
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court	Plain text of Section 154 CrPC requiring mandatory FIR registration on cognizable offence. Constitution Bench’s holding in Lalita Kumari that no preliminary inquiry is allowed when FIR threshold is met. Distinction between CrPC and BNSS preliminary inquiry frameworks in Imran Pratapgadhi.
Facts as Summarised by the Court	Communal riots in Akola on 13.05.2023; appellant eyewitness to murder of one individual and was himself assaulted. Victim admitted as Medico-Legal Case No. 5580 at Icon Multispecialty Hospital; police recorded that appellant was unfit to speak and never registered FIR for his assault. Chargesheet filed only for murder FIR; appellant’s separate complaint on 01.06.2023 was ignored.

Practical Impact

Category	Impact
Binding On	All police stations and officers directing compliance with Section 154 CrPC
Persuasive For	State police forces, administrative tribunals overseeing police conduct
Follows	Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1 Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025) INSC 410

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

Reinforces that any cognizable offence brought to police notice, including via hospital MLC entry, mandates FIR registration without preliminary inquiry.
Confirms that non-registration or undue delay, even after valid written complaints to station-in-charge and Superintendent of Police, is dereliction attracting SIT and disciplinary action.
Empowers courts to direct constitution of special investigation teams and disciplinary proceedings against errant officers under supervisory jurisdiction.
Validates reliance on hospital records and General Diary entries to trigger police duty under Section 154 CrPC.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

Identification of statutory duty: Section 154(1) CrPC mandates recording of all cognizable offence information given to police and entry in prescribed diary.
Application of Lalita Kumari: No preliminary inquiry is permissible when information discloses a cognizable offence; FIR must be registered.
Examination of police inaction: Station diary showed knowledge of appellant’s MLC; yet no FIR for his assault and no inquiry by Superintendent as per Section 154(3).
Finding dereliction of duty: Both station-in-charge and SP failed legal obligations, irrespective of appellant’s delay in formal complaint.
Relief fashioned: Directed Maharashtra Home Secretary to form a balanced‐community SIT, register FIR for appellant’s assault, and initiate disciplinary action.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Appellant):

Police failed to register FIR despite knowledge of his assault as a cognizable offence and his admission as MLC.
He was an eyewitness to murder and assault; identified one assailant via flex board photograph.
Written complaint to police went unheeded, justifying writ under Article 226.

Respondent (State of Maharashtra):

Station diary entries showed appellant was unfit to speak; no verifiable statement taken.
Chargesheet filed for murder FIR; appellant’s separate assault complaint was not the subject of investigation.
Alleged petition was tainted by ulterior motives and filed after chargesheet, precluding writ interference.

Factual Background

In the communal riots of Akola City on 13 May 2023, the appellant witnessed a fatal assault and was himself attacked, sustaining head injuries that required hospitalization as Medico-Legal Case No. 5580. Although police recorded in their diary that an officer visited the hospital, no FIR was registered for the appellant’s assault, and a chargesheet was filed only for the murder FIR (RCC No. 954 of 2023). His later written complaints to station-in-charge and Superintendent of Police were ignored, prompting a writ petition dismissed by the Bombay High Court.

Statutory Analysis

Section 154(1) CrPC: Requires recording of orally or written information disclosing a cognizable offence, signed by informant, and FIR registration.
Section 154(3) CrPC: Empowers informant aggrieved by non-registration to approach Superintendent of Police, who must investigate or direct investigation if cognizability is established.
The court applied Lalita Kumari’s principle that registration is mandatory, underscoring that neither duty nor power to investigate under Section 154 can be evaded.

Procedural Innovations

Court-mandated constitution of a balanced‐community SIT to ensure impartial police investigation where standard channels failed.
Direction for disciplinary action against erring police officers, reinforcing accountability under CrPC supervisory jurisdiction.

Alert Indicators

✔ Precedent Followed