Preliminary Inquiry Not Required Before Registering FIR in Cognizable Offences: Supreme Court

The Court upheld the decision of the Gujarat High Court whereby the Petitioner’s plea seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering any FIR against him for acts performed in his official capacity was dismissed.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale held, “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. However, in cases where the information clearly discloses a cognizable offence, the police have no discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR.”

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Devadatt Kamat appeared for the Petitioner, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Maninder Singh represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner was the Collector of Kachchh District, Gujarat, between 2003 and 2006, and a couple of FIRs were registered against him regarding alleged irregularities in land allotment Orders passed during his tenure. The allegations pertained to abuse of official position, corrupt practices, and financial irregularities.

The Petitioner contended that the successive registration of FIRs violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 20, and 21 of the Constitution and amounted to harassment.

The High Court dismissed his Writ Petition, holding that a preliminary inquiry is warranted only where there is doubt about whether a cognizable offence is disclosed.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court stated, “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 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.”

The Court pointed out, “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.”

The Bench also clarified that it cannot issue a blanket direction restraining the registration of FIRs against the Petitioner 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,” it clarified.

Consequently, the Court held, “In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 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.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.

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

Appearance:

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

Respondents: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta; Senior Advocate Maninder Singh; AAG Mitesh Amin; AOR Swati Ghildiyal; Advocates Kanu Agarwal and Neha Singh

Click here to read/download the Judgment