In terms of the language used in Section 154 of the Code v. GOVT. OF U.P. upon which would result in unjustified protection of & Ors.

3.2. In terms of the language used in Section 154 of the Code, the police is duty bound to proceed to conduct investigation into a cognizable offence even without receiving information (i.e. FIR) about commission of such an offence, if the officer in charge of the police station otherwise suspects the commission of such an offence. F The legislative intent is therefore quite clear, i.e., to ensure that every cognizable offence is promptly investigated in accordance with law. This being the legal position, there is no reason that there should be any discretion or option left with the police to register or not to register an FIR G when information is given about the commission of a cognizable offence. [Para 73) [783-0-F]

3.3. The insertion of sub-section (3) of Section 154, by way of an amendment, reveals the intention of the legislature to ensure that no information of commission H of a cognizable offence must be ignored or not acted LALITA KUMARI v. GOVT. OF U.P. 721 upon which would result in unjustified protection of the A alleged offender/accused. [Para 74) [783-H; 784-A]

3.4. The maxim expression unius est exclusion alterius (expression of one thing is the exclusion of another) applies in the interpretation of Section 154 of the B Code, where the mandate of recording the information in writing excludes the possibility of not recording an information of commission of a cognizable crime in the special register. [Para 75) [784-B]

4.1. It is not correct to state that information will be C first recorded in the General Diary and only after preliminary inquiry, if required, the information will be registered as FIR. The First Information Report is in fact the "information" that is received first in point of time, which is either given in writing or is reduced to writing. It D is not the "substance" of it, which is to be entered in the diary prescribed by the State Government. The term 'General Diary' (also called as 'Station Diary' or 'Daily Diary' in some States) is maintained not under Section 154 of the Code but under the provisions of Section 44 E of the Police Act, 1861 in the States to which it applies, or under the respective provisions of the Police Act(s) applicable to a State or under the Police Manual of a State, as the case may be. [Paras 48 and 61) [764-G-H; 765-A- B; 769-F] F Superintendent of Police, CBI vs. Tapan Kumar Singh (2003) 6 sec 175: 2003 (3) SCR 485 - relied on.

4.2. It is thus clear that registration of FIR is to be done in a book called FIR Book or FIR Register. Of G course, in addition, the gist of the FIR or the substance of the FIR may also be mentioned simultaneously in the General Diary as mandate~ in the respective Police Act or Rules, as the case may be, under the relevant State provisions. [Para 54) [766-G] H 722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R. A Madhu Bala vs. Suresh Kumar (1997) 8 SCC 476: 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 32; State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) sec 335: 1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259 - relied on. 8

4.3. The General Diary is a record of all important transactions/events taking place in a police station, -including departure and arrival of police staff, handing over or taking over of charge, arrest of a person, details of law and order duties, visit of senior officers etc. It is in this context that gist or substance of each FIR being C registered in the police station is also mentioned in the Gen'eral Diary since registration of FIR also happens to be a very important event in the police station. Since General Diary that is maintained chronologically on day-to-day basis (on each day, starting with new number 1), the General Diary entry D reference is also mentioned simultaneously in the FIR Book, while FIR number is mentioned in the General Diary entry since both of these are prepared simultaneously. [Para 55] [766-H; 767-A-C] is a record E

4.4. The signature of the complainant is obtained in the FIR Book as and when the complaint is given to the police station. On the other hand, there is no such requirement of obtaining signature of the complainant in the general diary. Moreover, at times, the complaint given F may consist of large number of pages, in which case, it is only the gist of the complaint which is to be recorded in the General Diary and not the full complaint. This does not fit in with the suggestion that what is recorded in General Diary should be considered to be the fulfillment/ G compliance of the requirement of Section 154 of registration of FIR. In fact, the usual practice is to record the complete complaint in the FIR book (or annex it with the FIR form) but record only about one or two paragraphs (gist of the information) in the General Diary. [Para 58] [767-G-H; 768-A-B] H LALITA KUMARI v. GOVT. OF U.P. 723

4.5. Thus registration of FIR is mandatory and also A that it is to be recorded in the FIR Book by giving a unique annual number to each FIR to enable strict tracking of each and every registered FIR by the superior police officers as well as by the competent court to which copies of each FIR are required to be sent. [Para 63] [770- B H; 771-A] '

4.6. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a poJice station, it is directed that all information relating to cognizable C offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected. [Para 111 (viii)] [802-D-E] D

#5. Section 39 of the Code casts a statutory duty on every person to inform about commission of certain offences which includes offences covered by Sections 121 to 126, 302, 64-A, 382, 392 etc., of the IPC. It would be incongruous to suggest that though it is the duty of E every citizen to inform about commission of an offence, but it is not obligatory on the officer-incharge of a Police Station to register the report. The word 'shall' occurring in Section 39 of the Code has to be given the same meaning as the word 'shall' occurring in Section 154(1) F of the Code. [Para 46] [764-C-D]

6.1. The Code was enacted under Entry 2 of the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution while the Police Act, 1861 (or other similar Acts in respective States) were enacted under Entry 2 of G the State List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. It is clear from the mandate of Article 254(1) of the Constitution that if there is any inconsistency between the provisions of the Code and the Police Act, 1861, the provisions of the Code will prevail and the provisions of H 724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R. A the Police Act would be void to the extent of the repugnancy. [Paras 59 and 60] [768-C-D; 769-C] 8

6.2. If at all, there is any inconsistency in the provisions of Section 154 of the Code and Section 44 of the Police Act, 1861, with regard to the fact as to whether the FIR is to be registered in the FIR book or in the General Diary, the provisions of Section 154 of the Code will prevail and the provisions of Section 44 of the Police Act, 1861 (or similar provisions of th~ respective corresponding Police Act or Rules in other respective C States) shall be void to the extent of the repugnancy. [Para 61] [769-D-E] D

7.1. It is not correct to say that mandatory registration of FIRs will lead to arbitrary arrest, which will directly be in contravention of Article 21 of the Constitution. Conducting an investigation into an offence after registration of FIR under Section 154 of the Code is the "procedure established by law" and, thus, is in conformity with Article 21 of the Constitution. E Accordingly, the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution is protected if the FIR is registered first and then the investigation is conducted in accordance with the provisions of law. [Paras 76 and 97] [784-C-D; 794-F] F

7.2. While registration of FIR is mandatory, arrest of the accused immediately on registration of FIR is not at all mandatory. In fact, registration of FIR u/s. 154 and arrest of an accused person u/s. 41 are two entirely different concepts under the law, and there are several G safeguards available against arrest. Moreover, it is also pertinent to mention that an accused person also has a right to apply for "anticipatory bail" under the provisions of Section 438 of the Code if the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. The remedy lies in strictly enforcing the safeguards available against arbitrary arrests made H LALITA KUMARI v. GOVT. OF U.P. 725 by the police and not in allowing the police to avoid A mandatory registration of FIR when the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence. [Paras 98 and 100] [794-G-H; 795-A; 796-A-B]

7.3. Besides, the Code gives power to the police to 8 close a matter both before and after investigation. A police officer can foreclose an FIR before an investigation under Section 157 of the Code, if it appears to him that there is no sufficient ground to investigate the same. The police officer can also, in a given case, investigate the matter and C then file a final report under Section 173 of the Code seeking closure of the matter. Therefore, the police is not liable to launch an investigation in every FIR which is mandatorily registered on receiving information relating to commission of a cognizable offence. [Para 102] [796-F- H] D

7.4. Thus, the Scheme of the Code not only ensures that the time of the police should not be wasted on false and frivolous information but also that the police should not intentionally refrain from doing their duty of E investigating cognizable offences. As a result, the apprehension of misuse of the provision of mandatory registration of FIR is unfounded and speculative in nature. [Para 103] [797-E-F] F

7.5. It is true that a delicate balance has to be maintained between the interest of the society and protecting the liberty of an individual. But there are already sufficient safeguards provided in the Code which duly protect the liberty of an individual in case of registration of false FIR. At the same time, Section 154 G was drafted keeping in mind the interest of the victim and the society. Therefore, mandatory registration of FIRs under Section 154 of the Code will not be in contravention of Article 21 of the Constitution. [Para 105] [798-B-C] H 726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R. A

#8. It is true that the concept of "preliminary inquiry" is contained in Chapter IX of the Crime Manual of the CBI. However, this Crime Manual is not a statute and has not been enacted by the legislature. It is a set of administrative orders issued for internal guidance of the CBI officers. It B cannot supersede the Code. Moreover, in the absence of any indication to the contrary in the Code itself, the provisions of the CBI Crime Manual cannot be relied upon to import the concept of holding of preliminary inquiry in the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The CBI c is constituted under a Special Act, namely, the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and it derives its power to investigate from this Act. Though there is reference to the term 'preliminary inquir}t' and 'inquiry' under Sections 159 and Sections 202 and 340 of the Code, that is a judicial exercise undertaken by the Court and not by the Police and is not relevant for the purpose of the present reference. It may be submitted that Sections 4(2) and 5 of the Code permit special procedures to be followed for special Acts. Thus, the powers of the CBI under the DSPE Act, cannot be equated with the powers of the E regular State Police under the Code. [Paras 78, 79, 80 and 0 82] [784-G; 785-A-D; 786-C]

#9. Inquiry under the Code is relatable to a judicial act and not to the steps taken by the Police which are either investigation after the stage of Section 154 of the Code or termed as 'Preliminary Inquiry' and which are prior to the registration of FIR, even though, no entry in the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary has been made. Though there is reference to the term 'preliminary inquiry' and 'inquiry' under Sections 159 and Sections 202 and 340 of the Code, that is a judicial exercise undertaken by the Court and not by the Police and is not relevant for the purpose of the present reference. [Para 77 & 78] [784-F G]

10.1. The object sought to be achieved by registering F G H LALITA KUMAR! v. GOVT. OF U.P. 727 the earliest information as FIR is inter alia two fold: one, A that the criminal process is set into motion and is well documented from the very start; and second, that the earliest information received in relation to the commission of a cognizable offence is recorded so that there cannot be any embellishment etc., later. (Para 83] [786-D-E] B

10.2. Principles of democracy and liberty demand a regular and efficient check on police powers. One way of keeping check on authorities with such powers is by documenting every action of theirs. Accordingly, under C the Code, actions of the police etc., are provided to be written and documented. (Para 84] (786-F]

10.3. The underpinnings of compulsory registration of FIR is not only to ensure transparency in the criminal justice delivery system but also to ensure 'judicial D oversight'. [Para 86] [787-D]

10.4. The registration of FIR either on the basis of the information furnished by the informant under Section 154(1) of the Code or otherwise under Section 157(1) of E the Code is obligatory. The obligation to register FIR has inherent advantages: a) It is the first step to 'access to justice' for a victim. It upholds the 'Rule of Law' inasmuch as the ordinary person brings forth the commission of a cognizable crime in the knowledge of the State. It also facilitates swift investigation and sometimes even prevention of the crime. In both cases, it only effectuates the regime of law. It leads to less manipulation in criminal cases and lessens incidents of 'ante-dates' FIR or deliberately delayed FIR. [Para 88] (787-G-H; 788-A-C] F G

10.5. According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons, protection of the interests of the poor is clearly one of the main objects of the Code. Making registration of information relating to commission of a cognizable offence mandatory would help the society, especially, the H 728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R. A poor in rural and remote areas of the country. [Para 92] [792-C-D] 8

10.6. The number of Fl Rs not registered is approximately equivalent to the number of FIRs actually registered. Keeping in view the NCRB figures that show that about 60 lakh cognizable offences were registered in India during the year 2012, the burking of crime may itself be in the range of about 60 lakh every year. Thus, such a large number of FIRs are not registered every C year, which is a clear violation of the rights of the victims of such a large number of crimes. Burking of crime leads to dilution of the rule of law in the short run; and also has a very negative impact on the rule of law in the long run since people stop having respect for rule of law. Thus, non-registration of such a large number of FIRs leads to D a definite lawlessness in the society. [Paras 94 and 95] [794-A-C]

11.1. Although, in unequivocal terms, it is held that Section 154 of the Code postulates the mandatory E registration of FIRs on receipt of all cognizable offence, yet, there may be instances where preliminary inquiry may be required owing to the change in genesis and novelty of crimes with the passage of time. One such instance is in the case of allegations relating to medical F negligence on the part of doctors. It will be unfair and inequitable to prosecute a medical professional only on the basis of the allegations in the complaint. [Para 106] [798-0-E]

11.2. Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section G 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be H conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence LALITA KUMARI v. GOVT. OF U.P. 729 is disclosed or not. If the inquiry discloses the A commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in B brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. [Para 111] [800-G-H; 801-A-C]

11.3. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but C only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made for illustration, are: (a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes; D (b) Commercial offences; (c) Medical negligence cases; (d) Corruption cases; (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. E [Para 111 v and vi] [801-E-H; 802-A]

11.4. While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not F exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. [Para 111 vii] [802-C] E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3: 1974 (2) SCR 348; S.M.O. Kiran Pasha vs. Government of G Andhra Pradesh (1990) 1 SCC 328: 1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 105; D.K. Basu vs. State of W.B. (1997) 1 SCC 416: 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 284; Uma Shankar Sitani vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Ors. (1996) 11 SCC 714; Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981) 1 H 730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R. A SCC 608: 1981 (2) SCR 516 Common Cause, A Registered Society vs. Union of India (1999) 6 SCC 667: 1999 (3) SCR 1279 District Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad vs. Canara Bank (2005) 1 SCC 496: 2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 833; Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra B (2005) 5 SCC 294: 2005 (3) SCR 345; Superintendent of Police, CBI vs. Tapan Kumar Singh (2003) 6 SCC 175: 2003 (3) SCR 485; State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi (1964) 3 SCR 71; P. Sirajuddin vs. State of Madras (1970) 1 SCC 595: 1970 (3) SCR 931; Sevi vs. State of Tamil c Nadu 1981 Supp SCC 43; Shashikant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2007) 1 SCC 630: 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 474; Rajinder Singh Katoch vs. Chandigarh Admn. (2007) 10 SCC 69: 2007 (11) SCR 246; Vineet Narain vs. Union of India (1998) 1 sec 226: 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 595; Elumalai vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1983 LW (CRL) 121; A. Lakshmanarao vs. Judicial Magistrate, Parvatipuram AIR 1971 SC 186: 1971 (2) SCR 822; State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Sagar Yadav and Ors. (1985) 1 SCC 552: 1985 (2) SCR 621; Mona Panwar vs. High Court of Judicature of Allahabad (2011) 3 SCC 496: 2011 (2) SCR 413; Apren Joseph vs. E State of Kera/a (1973) 3 SCC 114: 1973 (2) SCR 16; King Emperor vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18 - referred to. 0 F Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2008) 7 SCC 164; Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2008) 14 SCC 337; Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2012) 4 SCC 1: 2012 (1) SCR 1066; Govindla/ Chhaganla/ Patel vs. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Godhra and Ors. (1975) 2 SCC G 482: 1976 (1) SCR 451; Ganesh Bhavan Patel and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra (1978) 4 SCC 371: 1979 (2) SCR 94; Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and Anr: (2005) 6 SCC 1: 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 307; State of West Bengal vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal H (2010) 3 SCC 571: 2010 (2) SCR 979; H.N. Rishbud and LALITA KUMARI v. GOVT. OF U.P. 731 lnder Singh vs. State of Delhi AIR 1955 SC 196: 1955 SCR A 1150; S.N. Sharma vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari (1970) 1 SCC 653: 1970 (3) SCR 946; Union of India vs. Prakash P. Hinduja (2003) 6 SCC 195: 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 307; Sheikh Hasib alias Tabarak vs. State of Bihar (1972) 4 SCC 773; Ashok Kumar Todi vs. Kishwar Jahan and Ors. (2011) B 3 SCC 758: 2011 (3) SCR 597; Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) and Ors. vs. State of T.N. and Ors. (2002) 3 sec 533: 2002 (2) SCR 383 Mannalal Khatic vs. The State AIR 1967 Cal 478; Mohindro vs. State of Punjab (2001) 9 SCC 581; Munna Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 1992 Crl. L.J. 1558; c Giridhari Lal Kanak vs. State and ors. 2002 Crl. L.J. 2113; Katteri Moideen Kutty Haji vs. State of Kera/a 2002 (2) Crimes 143; Re: Subbaratnam and Ors. AIR 1949 Madras 663; Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248: 1978 (2) SCR 621; Chairman Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines and Anr. vs. Ramjee (1977) 2 SCC 256: 1977 (2) SCR 904; La/it Mohan Pandey vs. Pooran Singh (2004) 6 SCC 626: 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 737; Prativa Bose vs. Kumar Rupendra Deb Raikat (1964) 4 SCR 69; Thu/ia Kali vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1972) 3 SCC 393: 1972 (3) SCR 622; Joginder Kumar vs. State of UP. and Ors. (1994) 4 sec 260 - referred to. 0 E Case Law Reference: (2008) 1 sec 164 (2008) 14 sec 337 referred to referred to 1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259 relied on F Para 3 Para 4 Para 38, 53, 2006 (2) SCR 403 relied on 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 197 relied on Para 4, 66 Para 4, 65 G 1970 (3) SCR 931 1981 Supp sec 43 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 474 referred to referred to relied on Para 4 Para 4 Para 4 · H 732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R. A 2007 (11) SCR 246 referred to 2012 (1) SCR 1066 referred to 2011 (3) SCR 932 1973 (2) SCR 502 relied on relied on B Para 4 Para 5 Para 37 Para 37 1976 (1) SCR 451 referred to Para 9 1979 (2) SCR 94 referred to Para 10 2007 (8) SCR 390 (1979) 2 sec 322 c referred to Para 26 referred to Para 10 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 202 referred to Para 10 (1964) 3 SCR 71 referred to Para 11 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 307 referred to Para 11 2003 (3) SCR 485 referred to Para 12 1967 SCR 120 relied on Para 41 2010 (2) SCR 979 referred to Para 12 1955 SCR 1150 referred to Para 13 1970 (3) SCR 946 referred to Para 13 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 307 (1972) 4 sec 113 referred to Para 13 referred to Para 13 2011 (3) SCR 597 referred to Para 13 2002 (2) SCR 383 referred to Para 13 D E F G AIR 1967 Cal 478 (2001 > 9 sec 581 referred to Para 13 referred to Para 16 1992 Crl. L.J. 1558 referred to Para 16 2002 Crl. L.J. 2113 referred to Para 16 H 2002 (2) Crimes 143 referred to Para 16 LALITA KUMARI v. GOVT. OF U.P. 733 AIR 1949 Madras 663 referred to Para 17 A Para 19 Para 20 Para 20 Para 20 1978 (2) SCR 621 1977 (2) SCR 904 referred to referred to 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 737 referred to (1964) 4 SCR 69 (2011 > 1 sec 577 referred to referred to Para 25 2010 (9) SCR 1168 referred to Para·27 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 32 relied on Para 53 1974 (2) SCR 348 referred to Para 70 1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 105 referred to 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 284 referred to (1996) 11 sec 114 referred to 1981 (2) SCR 516 1999 (3) SCR 1279 referred to referred to 2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 833 referred to 2005 (3) SCR 345 referred to 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 595 referred to Para 70 Para 70 Para 70 Para 70 Para 70 Para 70 Para 70 Para 71 1983 LW (CRL) 121 referred to Para 71 1971 (2) SCR 822 1985 (2) SCR 621 2-011 (2) SCR 413 1973 (2) SCR 16 AIR 1945 PC 18 1972 (3) SCR 622 (1994) 4 sec 260 referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to Para 71 Para 71 Para 71 Para 71 Para 71 referred to Para 89 referred to Para 99 H B c D E F G 734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R. A CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Crl) No. 68 of 2008. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. B WITH SLP (Crl.) Nos. 5986 of 2006, 5200 of 2009, Crl. A. Nos. 1410 of 2011, 1267 of 2007 & Contempt Pet. (C) No. D 26722 of 2008 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 68 of 2008. C Mohan Parasaran, SG, K.V. Vishwanathan, A.S. Chandhiok, Sidharth Luthra, ASG, S.B. Upadhyay, R.K. Dash, Vibha Datta Makhija, Shekhar Naphade, Krishna Sarma, V. Madhukar, Subramonium Prasad, Manjit Singh, Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG, Mona K. Rajvanshi, B.K. Shahi, Anurag Kashyap, D B.P. Gupta, Ashwani Kumar, G. Sivabalamurugan, Anis Mohammad, Dayanadan Pandey, L.K. Pandey, Abhijat P. Medh, Shalu Sharma, Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Debasis Misra, Satya Siddiqui, Sarfraz A. Siddiqui, S.K. Mishra, D.S. Mahra, Dr. Ashok Dhamija, Rajiv Nanda, Sonia Dhamija, P.K. Dey, T.A. Khan, B.V. Bairam Das, Gaurav Srivastava, Archana E Singh, Abhisth Kumar, Vikrant Yadav, Kamalendra Mishra, C.D. Singh, Arjun Dewan, Supriya Juneja, Gurmohan Singh Bedi, Anandana Handa, Charul Sarin, Mishra Saurabh, Sanjay Kharde, Shankar Chillarge, Sachin Patil Shubhangi Tuli, Asha G. Nair, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Arputham Aruna & Co., F Sharmila Upadhyay, Debasis Mishra, Ena Toli Serna, Hemantika Wahi, Parul Kumari, Anil Shrivastava, Rituraj Biswas, Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Kamini Jaiswal, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Mukesh Verma, Naresh K. Sharma, P.V. Dinesh, Anitha Shenoy, Gopal Singh, G Manish Kumar, Chandan Kumar, Ritu Raj Biswas, Anil K. Jha, Riku Sarma, Navnit Kumar, (for Corporate Law Group,) Sumita Hazarika, Satish Vig, Aruneshwar Gupta, D. Bharathi Reddy, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle, Prabhu Ramasubramanian, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Ajay Pal, R. Nedurmaran, Ranjan H Mukherjee, A. Subhashini, Dr. Monika Gusain, S. LALITA KUMARI v. GOVT. OF U.P. 735 Thannanjayan, Sudharshan Singh Rawat, Rameshwar Prasad A Goyal, Dinesh Sharma, Paritosh Anil, Anvita Cowshish, Kuldip Singh, M. Yogesh Kanna, Vanita Chandrakant Giri, A. Shanta Kumar, Sasikala, K.N. Madhusoodhanan, R. Sathish, Vivekta Singh, Tarjit Singh, Vikas Sharma, Vinay Kuhar, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Amit Lubhaya, lrshad Ahmad for the Appearing Parties. B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. SATHASIVAM, CJI. 1. The important issue which arises for consideration in the referred matter is whether "a police officer is bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon C receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') or the police officer has the power to conduct a "preliminary inquiry" in order to test the veracity of such information before registering the same?" D

#2. The present writ petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution, has been filed by one Lalita Kumari (minor) through her father, viz., Shri Bhola Kamat for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus or direction(s) of like nature against the respondents herein for the protection of his minor daughter who has been kidnapped. The grievance in the said writ petition is that on 11.05.2008, a written report was. submitted by the petitioner before the officer in-charge of the police 'station concerned who did not take any action on the same. Thereafter, when the Superintendent of Police was moved, an FIR was registered. According to the petitioner, even thereafter, steps were not taken either for apprehending the accused or for the recovery of the minor girl child. E F

#3. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in, Lalita Kumari vs. G Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 7 SCC 164, after noticing the disparity in registration of FIRs by police officers on case to case basis across the country, issued notice to the Union of India, the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories and Director Generals of Police/Commissioners of H 736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R. A Police to the effect that if steps are not taken for registration of FIRs immediately ana the copies thereof are not handed over to the complainants, they may move the Magistrates concerned by filing complaint petitions for appropriate direction(s) to the police to register the case immediately and for apprehending the accused persons, failing which, contempt proceedings must be initiated against such delinquent police officers if no sufficient cause is shown. B

#4. Pursuant to the above directions, when the matter was heard by the very same Bench in Lalita Kumari vs. C Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 14 SCC 337, Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, projected his claim that upon receipt of information by a police officer in-charge of a police station disctosing a cognizable offence, it is imperative for him to register a case under Section D 154 of the Code and placed reliance upon two-Judge Bench decisions of this Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, Ramesh Kumari vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2006) 2 SCC 677 and Parkash Singh Badal vs. State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC 1. On the other hand, Mr. Shekhar E Naphade, learned senior counsel for the State of Maharashtra submitted that an officer in-charge of a police station is not obliged under law, upon receipt of information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, to register a case rather the discretion lies with him, in appropriate cases, to hold some F sort of preliminary inquiry in relation to the veracity or otherwise of the accusations made in the report. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon two-Judge Bench decisions of this Court in P. Sirajuddin vs. State of Madras (1970) 1 SCC 595, Sevi vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1981 Supp G SCC 43, Shashikant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2007) 1 SCC 630, and Rajinder Singh Katoch vs. Chandigarh Admn. (2007) 10 SCC 69. In view of the conflicting decisions of this Court on the issue, the said bench, vide order dated 16.09.2008, referred the same to a larger bench. H LALITA KUMARI v. GOVT. OF U.P. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.] 737

#5. Ensuing compliance to the above direction, the matter A pertaining to Lalita Kumari was heard by a Bench of three Judges in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2012) 4 SCC 1 wherein, this Court, after hearing various counsel representing Union of India, States and Union Territories and also after adverting to all the conflicting decisions B extensively, referred the matter to a Constitution Bench while concluding as under:- "97. We have carefully analysed various judgments delivered by this Court in the last several decades. We C clearly discern divergent judicial opinions of this Court on the main issue: whether under Section 154 CrPC, a police officer is bound to register an FIR when a cognizable offence is made out or he (police officer) has an option, discretion or latitude of conducting some kind of preliminary inquiry before registering the FIR. D

#98. The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India and different States have expressed totally divergent views even before this Court. This Court also carved out a special category in the case of medical doctors in the E aforementioned cases of Santosh Kumar and Suresh Gupta where preliminary inquiry had been postulated before registering an FIR. Some counsel also submitted that the CBI Manual also envisages some kind of preliminary inquiry before registering the FIR. F

#99. The issue which has arisen for consideration in these cases is of great public importance. In view of the divergent opinions in a large number of cases decided by this Court, it has become extremely important to have a clear enunciation of law and adjudication by a larger Bench G of this Court for the benefit of all concerned-the courts, the investigating agencies and the citizens.

#100. Consequently, we request the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to refer these matters to a Constitution Bench of H 738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R. A at least five Judges of this Court for an authoritative judgment."

#6. Therefore, the only question before this Constitution Bench relates to the interpretation of Section 154 of the Code B and incidentally to consider Sections 156 and 157 also.

#7. Heard Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned Additional, Solicitor General for the Union of India, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General for the State of C Chhattisgarh, Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Mr. R.K. Dash, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned senior counsel for the State of Maharashtra, U.P. and M.P. respectively, Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan, learned counsel for the accused, Dr. Ashok Dhamija, learned counsel for the CBI, Mr. Kalyan Bandopodhya, learned senior counsel for the State of West Bengal, Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned AAG for the State of Rajasthan and Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat. D

#8. In order to answer the main issue posed before this E Bench, it is useful to refer the following Sections of the Code:- "154. Information in cognizable cases.- (1) 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 by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether giv~n in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. (2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. (3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an F G H LALITA KUMAR! v. GOVT. OF U.P. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.] 739 officer in charge of a police station to record the A information referred to in subsection (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself B or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.

#156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable C case. (1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter D XIII. (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered E under this section to investigate. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above- mentioned. F

#157. Procedure for investigation: (1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such G offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the H 740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R. .. A case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the ~scovery and arrest of the offender: Provided that- (a) when information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature, the officer in charge of a police station need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot; ' (b) if it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case. Provided further that in relation to an offence of rape, the recording of statement of the victim shall be conducted at the residence of the victim or ih the place of her choice and as far as practicable by a woman police officer in the presence of her parents or guardian or near relatives or social worker of the locality. (2) In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub- section (1), the officer in charge of the police station shall state in his report his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements of that sub-section, and, in the case mentioned in clause (b) of the said proviso, the officer shall also forthwith notify to the informant, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated." Contentions:

#9. At the foremost, Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned senior counsel, while explaining the conditions mentioned in Section 154 submitted that Section 154(1) is mandatory as the use of the word 'shall' is indicative of the statutory intent of the legislature. He also contended that there is no discretion left B c D E F G H LALITA KUMAR! v. GOVT. OF U.P. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.] 741 to the police officer except to register an FIR. In support of the A above proposition, he relied on the following decisions, viz., B. Premanand and Ors. vs. Mohan Koikal and Others (2011) 4 SCC 266, Mis Hirala/ Rattan/al Etc. Etc. vs. State of U.P. and Anr. Etc. Etc. (1973) 1 SCC 216 and Govindlal Chhaganlal Patel vs. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Godhra B and Ors. (1975) 2 sec 482.

#10. Mr. Upadhyay, by further drawing our attention to the language used in Section 154(1) of the Code, contended that it merely mentions 'information' without prefixing tfle words 'reasonable' or 'credible'. In order to substantiate this claim, he C •·· relied on the foll()wing decisions, viz., Bhajan Lal (supra), Ganesh Bhavan Patel and Another vs. State of Maharashtra (1978) 4 SCC 371, Aleque Padamsee and Others vs. Union of India and Others (2007) 6 SCC 171, Ramesh Kumari (supra), Ram Lal Narang vs. State (Delhi Administration) D (1979) 2 SCC 322 and Lal/an Chaudhary and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another (2006) 12 SCC 229. Besides, he also brought to light various adverse impacts of ailowing police officers to hold preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR. E

#11. Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of Union of India submitted that in all the cases where information is received under Section 154 of the Code, it is mandatory for the police to forthwith enter the same into the register maintained for the said purpose, if the same relates to commission of a cognizable offence. According to learned ASG, the police authorities have no discretion or authority, whatsoever, to ascertain the veracity of such information before deciding to register it. He also pointed out that a police officer, who proceeds to the spot under G Sections 156 and 157 of the Code, on the basis of either a cryptic information or source information, or a rumour etc., has to immediately, on gathering information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, send a report (ruqqa) to the police station so that the same can be registered as FIR. F H 742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 14 S.C.R. B Padamsee (supra). He also deliberated upon A He also highlighted the scheme of the Code relating to the registration of FIR, arrest, various protections provided to the accused and the power of police to close investigation. In support of his claim, he relied on various decisions of this Court viz .. Bhajan Lal (supra), Ramesh Kumari (supra) and Aleque distinguishable judgments in conflict with the mandatory proposition, viz .. State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi (1964) 3 SCR 71, P. Sirajuddin (supra), Sevi (supra). Shashikant (supra), Rajinder Singh Katoch (supra), Jacob c Mathew vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2005) 6 SCC 1. He concluded his arguments by saying that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is led before an officer in charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information. Further. he emphasized upon various safeguards provided under the Code against filing a false case. 0

#12. Dr. Ashok Dhamija, learned counsel for the CBI, E submitted that the use of the word "shall" under Section 154(1) of the Code clearly mandates that if the information given to a police officer relates to the commission of a cognizable offence, then it is mandatory for him to register the offence. According to learned counsel, in such circumstances, there is no option F or discretion given to the police. He further contended that the word "shall" clearly implies a mandate and is unmistakably indicative of the statutory intent. What is necessary, according to him, is only that the information given to the police must disclose commission of a cognizable offence. He also G contended that Section 154 of the Code uses the word "information" simpliciter and does not use the qualified words such as "credible information" or "reasonable complaint". Thus, the intention of the Parliament is unequivocally clear from the language employed that a mere information relating to H commission of a cognizable offence is sufficient to register an LALITA KUMARI v. GOVT. OF U.P. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.] 743 FIR. He also relied on Bhajan Lal (supra), Ramesh Kumari A (supra), Aleque Padamsee (supra), Lal/an Chaudhary (supra), Superintendent of Police, CBI vs. Tapan Kumar Singh (2003) 6 SCC 175, Mis Hirata/ Rattan/al (supra), B. Premanand (supra), Khub Chand vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 1074, P. Sirajuddin (supra), Rajinder Singh Katoch (supra), B Bhagwant Kishore Joshi (supra), State of West Bengal vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal (201 O) 3 sec 571. He also pointed out various safeguards provided in the Code against filing a false case. In the end, he concluded by reiterating that the registration of FIR is mandatory C 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. Further, he also clarified that the preliminary inquiry conducted by the CBI, under certain situations, as provided under the CBI Crime Manual, stands on a different footing due to the special prov/sions relating to the D CBI contained in the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, which is saved under Sections 4(2) and 5 of the Code.

#13. Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal, submitted that E whenever any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence is received, it is the duty of the officer in charge of a police station to record the same and a copy of such information, shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant under Section 154(2) of the Code. According to him, F a police officer has no other alternative but to record the information in relation to a cognizable offence in the first instance. He also highlighted various subsequent steps to be followed by the police officer pursuant to the registration of an FIR. With regard to the scope of Section 154 of the Code, he G relied on H.N. Rishbud and lnder Singh vs. State of Delhi AIR 1955 SC 196, Bhajan Lal (supra), S.N. Sharma vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari (1970) 1 SCC 653, Union of India vs. Prakash P. Hinduja (2003) 6 SCC 195, Sheikh Hasib alias Tabarak vs. State o(Bihar (1972) 4 SCC 773, Shashikant (supra), Ashok H 744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.