The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of a retired IAS Officer accused of committing financial irregularities in the allotment of government land and held that a blanket direction restraining the registration of FIRs against him or mandating a preliminary inquiry in all future cases involving him can’t be issued.

The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the appellant’s plea seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering any First Information Report against him for acts performed in his official capacity.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale said, “Further, this Court cannot issue a blanket direction restraining the registration of FIRs against the appellant or mandating a preliminary inquiry in all future cases involving him. Such a direction would not only be contrary to the statutory framework of the CrPC but would also amount to judicial overreach. As rightly observed by the High Court, courts cannot rewrite statutory provisions or introduce additional procedural safeguards that are not contemplated by law.”

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal represented the Appellant while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant is a retired Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer who served in various administrative capacities, including as the Collector of Kachchh District, Gujarat, between 2003 and 2006. Several FIRs were registered against the appellant in connection with alleged irregularities in land allotment orders passed during his tenure as the Collector. The allegations against the appellant primarily pertained to abuse of official position, corrupt practices, and financial irregularities in the allotment of government land.

The first FIR in this regard was registered in 2010, followed by successive FIRs lodged against the appellant. The appellant remained in judicial custody throughout this period in connection with these cases, and trials are ongoing before competent Courts. Aggrieved by the registration of multiple FIRs, the appellant approached the High Court with the grievance that the registration of an FIR should be preceded by a preliminary inquiry in cases involving allegations of abuse of an official position. However, the same was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Arguments

One of the main arguments raised by the Petitioner was that multiple FIRs have been sequentially registered against him, particularly after he secured bail in previous cases, and the registration of such successive FIRs without a preliminary inquiry amounts to an abuse of process. It was further argued that the appellant, a retired IAS officer, has been subjected to unwarranted harassment through the registration of multiple FIRs, all of which relate to actions performed in his official capacity while serving as the Collector of District Kachchh.

Reasoning

Expounding on the law relating to the registration of FIRs in cases of cognizable offences, the Bench referred to the judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2014) wherein it has been observed that the scope of a preliminary inquiry is limited to situations where the information received does not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence but requires verification. It has also been held therein that where the information clearly discloses a cognizable offence, the police have no discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR. “...it reaffirms the settled principle that the police authorities are obligated to register an FIR when the information received prima facie discloses a cognizable offence”, the Bench added.

“In the present case, the allegations against the appellant pertain to the abuse of official position and corrupt practices while holding public office. Such allegations fall squarely within the category of cognizable offences, and there exists no legal requirement for a preliminary inquiry before the registration of an FIR in such cases”, the Bench said. The High Court explained that the appellant’s contention that successive FIRs have been registered against him with an ulterior motive is a matter that can be examined during the course of investigation and trial. It was further explained that the appellant has adequate remedies under the law, including the right to seek quashing of frivolous FIRs under Section 482 CrPC, the right to apply for bail, and the right to challenge any illegal actions of the investigating authorities before the appropriate forum.

Thus, finding no merit in the appeal, the Bench dismissed the same. “However, it is clarified that this order shall not preclude the appellant from availing any other remedies available to him under the law in respect of the pending FIRs or future proceedings”, it concluded.

Cause Title: Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 350)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Devadatt Kamat, AOR Divyesh Pratap Singh, Advocates Rupali Francesca Samuel, Rajesh Inamdar, Ajay Desai, Amit Sangwan

Respondent: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, A.A.G. Mitesh Amin, AOR Swati Ghildiyal, Advocates Kanu Agarwal, Neha Singh

Click here to read/download Judgment






Supreme CourtJustice Vikram NathJustice Prasanna B. Varale

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.