Lalita Kumari v. Government Of Uttar Pradesh And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

The writ petition before the Supreme Court raises the question whether, on receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence, a police officer is duty-bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or whether the officer may first conduct a preliminary enquiry into the truth of the allegations. After hearing the rival submissions and noting that earlier co-ordinate Bench decisions of the Court point in opposite directions, the Bench concluded that a conflict of authority exists. Consequently, the present order refers the matter to a larger Bench for an authoritative decision and requests that the case be heard expeditiously.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Does Section 154 CrPC impose a mandatory obligation on a police officer to register an FIR immediately upon receiving information that discloses a cognizable offence, or does the officer have discretion to undertake a preliminary enquiry before registration?

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

• Contended that the statutory mandate of Section 154 CrPC leaves no room for preliminary enquiries; an FIR must be registered once information disclosing a cognizable offence is received.
• Relied on the two-Judge Bench precedents in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2006 2 SCC 677) and Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (2007 1 SCC 1).

State’s Arguments

• Submitted that in appropriate cases an officer may, in the interest of justice and administrative prudence, engage in a short preliminary enquiry before deciding whether to register an FIR.
• Invoked the two-Judge Bench decisions in P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras (1970 1 SCC 595), Sevi v. State of T.N. (1981 Supp SCC 43), Shashikant v. CBI (2007 1 SCC 630) and Rajinder Singh Katoch v. Chandigarh Admn. (2007 10 SCC 69), together with observations in the three-Judge Bench ruling in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi (AIR 1964 SC 221).

Table of Precedents Cited

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis

The Bench observed that co-ordinate Benches of the Supreme Court have delivered seemingly contradictory rulings on whether registration of an FIR under Section 154 CrPC is mandatory or subject to the officer’s discretion to conduct a preliminary enquiry. Adhering to the principle of judicial discipline, a Bench of equal strength should not override or choose among co-ordinate Bench decisions. Therefore, the issue must be resolved by a larger Bench with the authority to settle the conflicting lines of precedent. Recognising the continuing uncertainty for law-enforcement agencies and litigants, the Court also noted the desirability of an early hearing.

Holding and Implications

ORDER OF REFERENCE: The petition is directed to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for assignment to an appropriate larger Bench.

Implications: The Court has not adjudicated the substantive issue; it has merely referred the conflict for authoritative resolution. Until the larger Bench renders its decision, both lines of precedent remain technically valid, and legal uncertainty persists.