Police Not Required To Go Into Genuineness & Credibility Of Information To Register FIR: Supreme Court

The Apex Court was deciding appeals filed by two officers who were on deputation to the CBI against orders of the Delhi High Court directing registration of FIRs against two CBI officers based on complaints alleging intimidation, irregular seizure of documents, and abuse of power.

The petitioner-officers had argued that the High Court erred in disregarding the CBI’s enquiry report and in directing FIR registration after a delay of more than a decade.

A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale dismissed the appeals, stressing that “it is the duty of the police to register an FIR if a prima facie cognizable offence is made out, the police is not required to go into the genuineness and credibility of the said information."

Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar appeared for the appellants. Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, along with Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, represented the respondents.

Background

The case arose from writ petitions filed in 2001, wherein the complainants levelled allegations of illegal seizure, abuse and intimidation against two CBI officers under various provisions of the IPC. They had sought registration of FIRs on the basis of complaints made to the Delhi Police in 2001 and 2004.

The Delhi High Court had then, in June 2006, directed registration of FIRs, holding that prima facie cognizable offences were disclosed. Appeals before the Division Bench were dismissed in 2019 on grounds of maintainability, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

The appellants contended that the complaints were barred by Section 197 CrPC and Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, and that the High Court could not override the CBI’s preliminary inquiry report. They further argued that the FIR direction after 12 years was barred by delay and latches.

Court’s Observations

While emphasising that constitutional courts are empowered to independently evaluate allegations and material on record to determine whether cognizable offences are disclosed, irrespective of closure or enquiry reports, the Bench remarked, “…if the Constitutional Court has exercised its discretion in entertaining the petitions and directing for the registration of the FIR against the two officers, on being satisfied that the commission of a cognizable offence is prima facie made out against them, we see no good reason to interfere with such discretion.”

The Bench also clarified that the existence of alternative remedies or the filing of closure reports does not bar constitutional courts from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC, while highlighting that “…Undoubtedly, the High Court(s) should discourage writ petitions or petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where alternative remedies are available. Nonetheless, as observed even in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.,8 it is equally true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction or the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C.”

The Bench rejected the appellants’ contention that the CBI should have been impleaded as a party, holding that the officers, and not the institution, were aggrieved. It also clarified that allegations of irregular seizure and intimidation could not be brushed aside merely on the strength of a preliminary report.

"The report of the CBI at best is a preliminary enquiry report submitted before the registration of the FIR. However, such an enquiry is not ordinarily contemplated in law before registration of FIR, and hence is not a conclusive report to be relied upon to oust the power of the Constitutional Court to record its own conclusion about commission of a cognizable offence, if any, on the material or the allegations in the complaints.”, the court said.

The Court further reiterated the settled principle that FIR registration is mandatory once cognizable offences are disclosed, stating that “Since, it is the duty of the police to register an FIR if a prima facie cognizable offence is made out, the police is not required to go into the genuineness and credibility of the said information. It has been so laid down very clearly in Ramesh Kumari (Supra) that the genuineness or credibility of the information is not the condition Precedent for registration of an FIR.”

Conclusion

Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order directing registration of FIRs, while modifying the direction that the investigation be carried out by a Delhi Police officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police.

The Bench further directed that the investigation be completed expeditiously, preferably within three months, clarifying that no coercive steps, including arrest, be taken against the appellants if they cooperate with the investigation.

Cause Title: Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. Seesh Ram Saini & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1095)

Appearances
Appellants: Sr. Adv. Ranjit Kumar
Respondents: ASG S.V. Raju, Sr. Adv. Dhruv Mehta

Click here to read/download Judgment