A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The appeal concerns whether a preliminary inquiry must, as a matter of law, precede the registration of every First Information Report where allegations relate to the abuse of official position. The appellant, a retired IAS officer, challenged multiple FIRs registered over alleged irregularities in land allotments during his tenure as Collector of Kachchh, asserting that successive FIRs often lodged after his release on bail  amounted to harassment and violated Articles 14, 20, 21, 22 and 226 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. ((2014) 2 SCC 1) to contend that preliminary inquiry is mandatory in such matters.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that where the information prima facie discloses a cognizable offence the police must register an FIR under Section 154, CrPC, and no prior inquiry is permissible; preliminary inquiry is permitted only where the information does not disclose a cognizable offence but calls for verification. The Supreme Court in this appeal affirmed that principle, restricting Lalita Kumari to cases where disclosure is not prima facie cognizable and rejecting any blanket pre-FIR hearing or protective order for the appellant.

The Court held that allegations of abuse of official position and corruption ordinarily disclose cognizable offences and that remedies for abuse quashing under Section 482 CrPC, bail applications and trial safeguards are available. The Court refused to convert judicial functions into administrative safeguards or to rewrite CrPC procedure.

Keywords: Section 154 CrPC; preliminary inquiry; cognizable offence; Lalita Kumari; abuse of official position.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appellant served as Collector of Kachchh between 2003–2006. During and after his tenure, multiple FIRs were registered alleging corrupt practices and irregular land allotments. The first FIR dated 2010 spawned successive FIRs, many of which were lodged when the appellant obtained bail in preceding matters. The appellant remained subject to criminal process and at times in custody while trials proceeded. He filed a writ petition under Articles 14, 20, 21, 22 and 226, seeking a writ of mandamus directing authorities to conduct a mandatory preliminary inquiry before registering any further FIRs against him for acts performed in official capacity.

The appellant characterized the sequence of FIRs as harassment, claiming that without a pre-registration verification he was repeatedly deprived of liberty and ability to defend. The State resisted, invoking the settled rule that where information discloses a cognizable offence the police must register an FIR under Section 154 CrPC and that Lalita Kumari only permits preliminary inquiry in limited, non-cognizable or ambiguous situations (for instance medical negligence).

The High Court dismissed the petition. On appeal, this Court had to examine the ambit of Lalita Kumari and whether a blanket or case-specific pre-FIR inquiry is legally warranted when allegations concern official abuse and corruption. The Court also addressed whether it could, prospectively, restrain future FIR registrations against the appellant.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant, an IAS officer now retired, administered land allotments as Collector of Kachchh (2003–2006). Complaints alleging abuse of office and financial irregularities in allotments led to registration of an FIR in 2010. Subsequently, multiple FIRs were lodged alleging related misconduct. The appellant contends a pattern: each time he obtained bail in one matter, further FIRs were registered, effectively prolonging detention or litigation and amounting to harassment.

He sought a writ directing that no FIR be registered without a preliminary inquiry into whether the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence and without giving him an opportunity to explain. The State submitted that where information prima facie discloses cognizable offences (corruption, abuse of public office), Section 154 mandates FIR registration and police have no discretion to hold back; preliminary inquiry is confined to cases where the information does not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence.

The High Court accepted the State’s position and dismissed the writ. On appeal, counsel for the appellant reiterated arguments of harassment and reliance on Lalita Kumari, while the respondent-State pressed the primacy of statutory procedure and existing remedies, warning against judicially grafted pre-FIR hearings that would obstruct investigations.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. imposes a general rule that a preliminary inquiry must be conducted before registering an FIR in cases of alleged abuse of official position?
ii. Whether allegations of corruption and misuse of official position ordinarily amount to prima facie disclosure of a cognizable offence, compelling FIR registration under Section 154 CrPC?
iii. Whether the Court can direct a blanket restraint on registration of FIRs or mandate pre-FIR hearings for a specific person to prevent harassment?
iv. What remedies are available to an accused who alleges malicious or vexatious registration of successive FIRs?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the sequence of successive FIRs immediately after grant of bail showed an orchestrated harassment campaign. They argued that Lalita Kumari permits preliminary inquiry where the complaint does not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence and that allegations relating to complex administrative decisions ought to be examined at prima facie stage by way of inquiry before subjecting a public servant to criminal process. The appellant claimed deprivation of liberty, inability to effectively prepare defence, and urged that mandating pre-FIR verification would curb abuse of police power and protect fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondent submitted that Section 154 CrPC mandates registration of FIR where information discloses a cognizable offence; police have no discretion to withhold registration in such cases. They argued Lalita Kumari does not create a universal pre-FIR inquiry rule but limits preliminary inquiry to instances where the complaint is not prima facie cognizable (e.g., medical negligence). Granting appellant’s prayer would amount to judicial legislation, afford undue advantage to accused persons and obstruct bona fide investigations. Remedies such as quashing under Section 482 CrPC, bail, and trial procedures suffice to address malicious prosecutions.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Court affirmed the principle in Lalita Kumari that registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC when the information received discloses a cognizable offence. The scope of preliminary inquiry was restated: it is limited to cases where the information does not prima facie disclose cognizable offence but where verification is required to determine whether a cognizable offence exists.

The Court rejected the appellant’s request for a writ directing preliminary inquiry before every FIR against him, finding that allegations of corruption and abuse of office typically disclose cognizable offences and that policing discretion cannot be expanded into a pre-registration hearing regime.

The Court emphasised statutory design: CrPC balances societal interest in investigation and individual liberty through downstream safeguards anticipatory bail, bail applications, quashing petitions under Section 482, and trial protections rather than through a pre-FIR interlocutory protective shield. The Court also held that issuing a blanket restraint on registration of FIRs against the appellant would be judicial overreach and contrary to statutory scheme.

It noted that allegations of ulterior motive or harassment are matters for investigation and judicial adjudication; they do not disable the statutory duty of registration where prima facie cognizance exists. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed while leaving open statutory remedies and without prejudice to appropriate future challenges by the appellant.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The decisive legal rule is that Section 154 CrPC requires mandatory registration of FIR where information discloses a cognizable offence; preliminary inquiry is permissible only when the complaint does not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence but requires verification. Where allegations concern corruption or abuse of public office they ordinarily constitute cognizable offences and trigger mandatory FIR registration.

Courts cannot create a pre-registration hearing entitlement for accused persons as that would substitute judicial policy-making for legislative procedure and impair investigation. Remedies for mala fides are post-registration: quashing under Section 482 CrPC, bail rights, and trial scrutiny.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court observed that preliminary inquiry remains a valuable tool in limited contexts (medical negligence, technical or novel factual matrices) and reaffirmed that Lalita Kumari anticipated its narrow application. The Court cautioned against generalized protective orders that would permit accused officials to claim immunity from investigation by demanding pre-FIR explanations. It reiterated respect for the balance between societal interest in law enforcement and individual liberty, noting that Code-based safeguards protect accused persons downstream.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Preliminary inquiry may be ordered only when the information received does not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence but requires factual verification.

• If a preliminary inquiry discloses cognizable offence, registration of an FIR is mandatory and must follow.

• Courts should not issue blanket or prospective orders restraining police from registering FIRs against a named individual absent extraordinary circumstances.

• Allegations of mala fide registration are to be addressed by available remedies: Section 482 CrPC quashing, bail jurisprudence, and trial adjudication.

• Police must supply a copy of closure of preliminary inquiry to the informant if inquiry results in closure, with brief reasons and within a reasonable time as envisaged in Lalita Kumari.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces procedural orthodoxy: prima facie disclosure of cognizable offence dictates police duty to register an FIR under Section 154 CrPC. Lalita Kumari is not a licence for blanket pre-FIR hearings; rather it permits narrowly tailored preliminary inquiries where complaints are not initially cognizable and need verification. For public servants facing allegations rooted in administrative decisions that have financial or corrupt implication, courts will expect investigation to proceed rather than preclude FIRs by judicial fiat.

The decision appropriately recognises the separation between investigation and adjudication; it preserves statutory investigative machinery while affirming judicial power to rectify malprosecution by established remedies. Practically, the judgment limits resort to preventive writs that would immunize accused persons from investigation and underscores the adequacy of post-registration judicial remedies. For practitioners, the ruling signals that contesting mala fide FIRs remains viable but must be pursued within Section 482 and bail jurisprudence rather than by seeking prophylactic pre-FIR injunctions.

The judgment balances liberty concerns and public interest in investigating corruption, restraining judicial activism that would alter CrPC mechanics. It also preserves the narrow utility of preliminary inquiry in specialist situations while resisting expansion into a generalized safeguard for accused officials.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1.

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 154; Section 482.

c. Constitutional Provisions Referred

i. Constitution of India — Articles 14, 20, 21, 22, 226.