SUPREME COURT HOLDS COURTS CANNOT REWRITE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OR INTRODUCE ADDITIONAL PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS THAT ARE NOT CONTEMPLATED BY LAW.

A Two Judge Bench of The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale passed a judgement dated 17.03.2025 in the matter ofPradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. The State of Gujarat and Ors. SLP (Crl.) 3154 of 2024, the Supreme Court of India addressed significant issues concerning the registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) for cognizable offences and the procedural requirements preceding such registrations. The Court’s decision clarified the scope of preliminary inquiries and reinforced the mandatory nature of FIR registration when cognizable offences are disclosed.

Facts

Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma, a retired Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer, served as the Collector of Kachchh District, Gujarat, between 2003 and 2006. During his tenure, several allegations surfaced regarding irregularities in the allotment of Government land. The first FIR was registered in 2010, followed by subsequent FIRs alleging abuse of official position, corrupt practices, and financial irregularities. Sharma remained in judicial custody during this period, with trials ongoing before competent courts.

First Round of Litigation

Aggrieved by the subsequent FIRs, the Appellant approached the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court under Article, 14, 20, 21, 22, and 226 of the Constitution of India. The Appellant sought relief of the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent Authorities to conduct a preliminary enquiry before registering any further FIRs against him. The Appellant also contended that his right to liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution along with other fundamental rights were being violated due to registration of criminal cases without even conducting a preliminary enquiry. He also stated that these FIRs are being lodged with an ulterior motive to harass him and prevent him from defending himself in pending cases.

The State of Gujarat opposed the Petition and argued that the relief sought by the Appellant was legally untenable. The State also argued that whenever any information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence is received, the Police is duty bound to register an FIR under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The State also argued that if the relief sought by the Appellant is granted to him, there would be a blanket protection against the investigation which is impermissible under the Law.

Issues

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Mandatory Registration of FIRs: Whether the registration of FIRs is mandatory upon receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence, or if a preliminary inquiry is required.
2. Scope of Preliminary Inquiry: In cases where the information does not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, what is the extent and purpose of a preliminary inquiry?

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings

The Court referred to its earlier decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh2014 SCC ONLINE SC 1873, which established guidelines for the registration of FIRs:

• Mandatory Registration: If the information received discloses a cognizable offence, the Police are obligated to register an FIR without conducting a preliminary inquiry.
• Preliminary Inquiry: Such an inquiry is permissible only when the information does not clearly disclose a cognizable offence but requires verification to determine its veracity.

The Court emphasized that the decision in Lalita Kumari does not mandate a preliminary inquiry in every case but reinforces the obligation of Police authorities to register an FIR when the information prima facie discloses a cognizable offence. The allegations against Sharma pertained to abuse of official position and corrupt practices during his tenure as Collector, which are categorized as cognizable offences. Therefore, the Police had no discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering the FIRs.

What the Hon’ble Supreme Court Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of Sharma’s plea by the Gujarat High Court, stating that issuing a blanket direction for a preliminary inquiry before registering FIRs against him would be contrary to the statutory framework of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and could amount to judicial overreach. The Court noted that such a direction would not only contradict existing legal provisions but also encroach upon the legislative domain. However, the Court clarified that this order does not preclude Sharma from availing other legal remedies available to him concerning the pending FIRs or future proceedings.

 

 

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. The State of Gujarat reinforces the legal position that the registration of FIRs is mandatory when information discloses a cognizable offence. It clarifies that preliminary inquiries are not a prerequisite for FIR registration in such cases and that judicial interventions cannot override the statutory procedures established under the CrPC. This decision serves as a significant reference for understanding the procedural dynamics between preliminary inquiries and FIR registrations in the Indian legal system.

 

KAUSTUBH PUNJ

SENIOR LEGAL ASSOCIATE

THE INDIAN LAWYER AND ALLIED SERVICES

Please log on to our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest video, titled ‘Civil Trials in India’, can be viewed at the link below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVQy72-nzMU