The Supreme Court of India, in a recent ruling, reaffirmed that the landmark judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2014) does not impose an absolute requirement for a preliminary inquiry before registering a First Information Report (FIR). The ruling came while the Court was deciding on an appeal by former Gujarat IAS officer Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma, who had challenged multiple FIRs lodged against him in a corruption-related land allotment case.
Background of the Case
Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma, a retired IAS officer, served in various administrative capacities, including as the Collector of Kachchh District, Gujarat. Multiple FIRs were registered against him for alleged irregularities in land allotments during his tenure. The allegations included abuse of official position, corrupt practices, and financial misconduct.
Aggrieved by the repeated filing of FIRs, Sharma approached the Gujarat High Court, seeking a directive that a preliminary inquiry be conducted before registering any further FIRs against him. He argued that the absence of such an inquiry violated his fundamental rights, particularly his right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the High Court dismissed his plea, leading him to appeal before the Supreme Court.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Rules Pension as Default Retiral Benefit for Rajendra Agricultural University Employees
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice PB Varale upheld the Gujarat High Court's decision, emphasizing that the Lalita Kumari judgment does not mandate a preliminary inquiry in all cases. The Court clarified:
"The registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the CrPC if the information prima facie discloses a cognizable offence. The scope of a preliminary inquiry is limited to situations where the information does not clearly indicate a cognizable offence and requires verification."
The Court further elaborated that in cases involving corruption and abuse of official position, where the allegations directly pertain to cognizable offences, the police have no discretion to delay the registration of an FIR by conducting a preliminary inquiry.
The Supreme Court reiterated the key takeaways from the Lalita Kumari judgment, stating:
"A preliminary inquiry is only warranted in exceptional circumstances such as family disputes, commercial matters, or medical negligence cases. However, when clear allegations of corruption or abuse of official power exist, the police are duty-bound to register an FIR."
The Court also rejected Sharma’s plea that the FIRs were lodged with an ulterior motive, stating that such concerns should be addressed during the investigation and trial.
Sharma had argued that successive FIRs were being registered against him without justification, especially after securing bail in previous cases. However, the Supreme Court dismissed this argument, holding:
"This Court cannot issue a blanket direction restraining the registration of FIRs against the appellant or mandating a preliminary inquiry in all future cases. Such a direction would amount to judicial overreach and would be contrary to the statutory provisions of the CrPC."
The Court noted that if an individual believes FIRs are being filed with a malicious intent, they have legal remedies such as filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing frivolous FIRs, seeking bail, or challenging the investigation before the appropriate forums.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the petitioner, while Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta represented the State of Gujarat in the case.
Case Details: PRADEEP NIRANKARNATH SHARMA v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
