In Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. ((2014) 2 SCC 1), a 5-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India held that registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is mandatory when information received by the police discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, and that the police have no authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering the FIR except in a narrow and defined category of cases. This is the definitive authority on the question of mandatory FIR registration in India and is among the most frequently tested cases in criminal law examinations.
Case snapshot
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Case name | Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. |
| Citation | (2014) 2 SCC 1 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Bench | 5-judge Constitution Bench — CJI P. Sathasivam, Justices B.S. Chauhan, Ranjana Prakash Desai, Ranjan Gogoi, S.A. Bobde |
| Date of judgment | 12 November 2013 |
| Subject | Criminal Procedure — FIR Registration, Section 154 CrPC |
| Key principle | FIR registration is mandatory for cognizable offences; no preliminary inquiry permitted except in limited categories |
Facts of the case
Lalita Kumari, a minor girl, was kidnapped from Uttar Pradesh. Her father approached the local police station to lodge an FIR, but the police refused to register the FIR and demanded a bribe. A habeas corpus petition was filed before the Allahabad High Court, which directed registration of the FIR. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, a 2-judge bench noted a conflict among various High Courts and earlier Supreme Court decisions on whether registration of an FIR is mandatory upon receiving information about a cognizable offence, or whether the police have discretion to hold a preliminary inquiry first. The 2-judge bench referred the question to a Constitution Bench for authoritative determination.
Issues before the court
- Whether registration of an FIR under Section 154 CrPC is mandatory upon receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence, or whether the police officer has discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registration?
- If a preliminary inquiry is permissible, what is its scope, time limit, and in which categories of cases can it be conducted?
- What are the consequences of refusal to register an FIR when a cognizable offence is disclosed?
What the court held
FIR registration is mandatory for cognizable offences. The Court held that the use of the word "shall" in Section 154(1) CrPC makes registration of an FIR obligatory when information about a cognizable offence is received. The police officer has no discretion to refuse registration or to delay it pending a preliminary inquiry.
Preliminary inquiry is permissible only in limited categories. The Court carved out a narrow exception: a preliminary inquiry (not exceeding 7 days) may be conducted only in cases where the information does not clearly disclose a cognizable offence — such as matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption cases, and cases with abnormal delay in reporting. Even in these categories, the scope of the preliminary inquiry is limited to ascertaining whether a cognizable offence is disclosed — it cannot be a mini-investigation.
Refusal to register FIR is punishable under Section 166A CrPC. The Court noted that Section 166A(1)(c) CrPC (inserted by Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013) makes non-registration of an FIR by a police officer a punishable offence with imprisonment up to 2 years and fine.
All information must be recorded. If the information does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates a non-cognizable offence, the police must follow the procedure under Section 155 CrPC and refer the informant to the Magistrate.
"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." — Chief Justice P. Sathasivam, writing for the Constitution Bench
Key legal principles
Mandatory nature of Section 154 CrPC
The word "shall" in Section 154(1) CrPC — "Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing" — is mandatory, not directory. The Court settled a long-standing controversy by holding that the police officer at the receiving end has no authority to evaluate the merits of the information before registering the FIR. The FIR is merely the starting point of investigation, not its conclusion.
The narrow exception for preliminary inquiry
The Constitution Bench identified categories where a preliminary inquiry (limited to 7 days) may precede FIR registration: (a) matrimonial disputes/family disputes, (b) commercial offences, (c) medical negligence cases, (d) corruption cases, and (e) cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution. Even in these categories, the preliminary inquiry can only determine whether a cognizable offence is disclosed — it cannot go into the truth or falsity of the allegations.
Section 173 BNSS — the current position
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 173 replaces Section 154 CrPC and retains the mandatory language. Section 173(3) BNSS additionally requires that the informant be given a free copy of the FIR, and Section 173(4) mandates electronic communication of the FIR to the informant. The Lalita Kumari principles continue to apply with full force under the new procedural code.
Significance
This judgment resolved a decades-old controversy about whether FIR registration is mandatory or discretionary. Before Lalita Kumari, police stations across India routinely refused to register FIRs — sometimes to suppress crime statistics, sometimes to avoid investigation workload, and sometimes because of corruption. By declaring registration mandatory and identifying refusal as a punishable offence under Section 166A CrPC, the Constitution Bench shut the door on one of the most common abuses in the Indian criminal justice system. The judgment also struck a practical balance by allowing a narrow window for preliminary inquiry in categories prone to frivolous complaints, thereby addressing concerns about the weaponization of criminal law. The decision has been cited in over 1,000 subsequent judgments across all levels of the Indian judiciary.
Exam angle
This case is essential for CLAT (Legal Aptitude and GK), Judiciary Prelims and Mains (Criminal Procedure), AIBE (Criminal Procedure), and UPSC Law Optional (Criminal Law). It is one of the top 5 most-tested criminal procedure cases.
MCQ format: "In Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014), the Supreme Court held that: (a) FIR registration is discretionary (b) Preliminary inquiry is mandatory before FIR registration (c) FIR registration is mandatory for cognizable offences (d) FIR can only be registered by a Magistrate." Answer: (c)
Descriptive format: "Discuss the law relating to registration of FIR under Section 154 CrPC in light of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014). In which categories of cases did the Constitution Bench permit a preliminary inquiry, and what are its limits?" (Judiciary Mains — 20 marks)
Key facts to memorize: 5-judge Constitution Bench (CJI Sathasivam, Justices Chauhan, Desai, Gogoi, Bobde); (2014) 2 SCC 1; decided 12 November 2013; "shall" in Section 154(1) is mandatory; preliminary inquiry limited to 7 days; 5 categories where preliminary inquiry is permitted; refusal punishable under Section 166A CrPC (up to 2 years); now Section 173 BNSS
Related provisions: Section 154 CrPC / Section 173 BNSS (FIR registration), Section 155 CrPC / Section 174 BNSS (non-cognizable offences), Section 166A CrPC (punishment for non-registration), Section 156 CrPC / Section 175 BNSS (investigation)
Follow-up cases: State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) — guidelines for quashing of FIR; Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI (2013) — FIR not an encyclopedia; T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) — second FIR not permissible for same offence
Frequently asked questions
Is the police bound to register an FIR if someone reports a cognizable offence?
Yes. The Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014) held that registration of an FIR under Section 154 CrPC (now Section 173 BNSS) is mandatory when information received discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The police officer has no discretion to refuse registration. If the officer refuses, they are liable to punishment under Section 166A CrPC with imprisonment up to 2 years and fine.
What is a preliminary inquiry and when is it allowed?
A preliminary inquiry is a brief factual verification — not exceeding 7 days — permitted only in specific categories: matrimonial/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases, and cases with abnormal delay in reporting. Even in these categories, the inquiry can only determine whether the information discloses a cognizable offence. It cannot assess the truth of the allegations or amount to an investigation.
Why was this case referred to a Constitution Bench?
The case was referred to a 5-judge Constitution Bench because there was a conflict among various Supreme Court decisions and High Court judgments on whether registration of an FIR is mandatory or discretionary. Some earlier decisions had held that the police could conduct a preliminary inquiry before registration, while others held that registration was mandatory. The Constitution Bench settled the controversy with binding authority.
How does the BNSS 2023 deal with FIR registration?
Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaces Section 154 CrPC and retains the mandatory language for FIR registration. It additionally introduces requirements for providing a free copy of the FIR to the informant and electronic communication of the FIR. The Lalita Kumari principles apply with full force under the new code.