Introduction
The registration of a First Information Report (FIR) forms the foundational gateway to India’s criminal justice system, triggering investigation and safeguarding citizens’ right to access justice.
Over decades, the Supreme Court has consistently reinforced that police have a mandatory, non-discretionary duty to record cognisable offences under Section 154 CrPC (now Section 173 BNSS), while carefully delineating the limited scope of preliminary enquiries, remedies against inaction, territorial flexibility through Zero FIRs, the evidentiary implications of delay, and strict accountability mechanisms—including departmental and penal consequences—for delinquent officers.
This compilation of landmark judgements traces the evolution of these principles from foundational rulings to recent pronouncements under the new criminal laws, underscoring the judiciary’s unwavering commitment to preventing police inaction, abuse of process, and denial of justice.
Mandatory Registration of FIR & Rule Against Refusal
Mandatory Duty Under Law: Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1
A Constitution Bench held that registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC (now Section 173 BNSS) if the information discloses a cognisable offence.
Police officers cannot evaluate the credibility, truthfulness, or reliability of allegations prior to recording an FIR, subject only to a limited preliminary inquiry in defined exceptions.
Initiation of Criminal Law: State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
The Supreme Court emphasised that information disclosing a cognisable offence sets the criminal law in motion.
At the threshold stage, police officers must not assess the reliability of allegations as if conducting a pre-trial evaluation.
Statutory Obligation & Consequences: Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2006) 2 SCC 677
Registration of an FIR is a non-discretionary statutory duty.
Wilful refusal or failure by a police officer to record a cognisable complaint exposes the responsible officer to departmental disciplinary action and statutory penalties.
Evidentiary Authenticity Is a Matter of Investigation: Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 1
Doubts surrounding the correctness, authenticity, or truth of allegations are matters to be examined during investigation, not valid grounds to refuse FIR registration.
Uncertainty Does Not Justify Inaction: N2Z v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2022 SC 3957
Police authorities cannot refuse registration merely because they harbour doubts regarding the allegations.
Verifying allegations is the purpose of an investigation, which ultimately concludes in a police report under Section 173 CrPC (now Section 193 BNSS).
Scope & Statutory Boundaries of Preliminary Inquiry
Not Mandatory in Every Case: State of Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87
A preliminary inquiry is not a mandatory prerequisite in every criminal case.
It is permissible only in specific categories (e.g., matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, and corruption cases) and cannot be used to delay FIR registration arbitrarily.
Strict Statutory Boundaries: Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma, (2021) 12 SCC 674
Preliminary enquiries conducted under specialised statutory regimes must strictly adhere to the limits prescribed by law and cannot defeat the primary obligation of prompt registration and investigation.
Procedural Safeguards Under New Criminal Laws: Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 410
Examining Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the Supreme Court held that the power to conduct a preliminary inquiry (restricted to offences punishable by 3 to 7 years, completed within 14 days) must be exercised strictly within statutory limits and cannot become a tool to deny citizens access to justice.
Remedies Against Police Inaction & Mandatory Escalation
Statutory Escalation Hierarchy: Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 409
Laid down the complete hierarchy of statutory remedies against police inaction: an aggrieved complainant must first approach superior police officers (SP/DCP) before seeking directions for investigation from a judicial magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC (now Section 175(3) BNSS).
Primary Recourse to Criminal Procedure: Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, (2016) 6 SCC 277
High Courts should not entertain Article 226 writ petitions directly when effective alternative statutory remedies are available under procedural law.
Mandatory Safeguards & Affidavits: Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 287
To curb abuse of process, applications before magistrates under Section 156(3) CrPC / Section 175(3) BNSS seeking directions for FIR registration must be supported by a prior application to the police and a sworn affidavit attesting to the truth of the allegations.
Avoidance of Direct Writ Remedies: Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India, (2007) 6 SCC 504
When police fail to register an FIR, the proper remedy lies before the magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC / Section 175(3) BNSS, not via direct writ jurisdiction under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution.
Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies: M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki, (2020) 16 SCC 728
Reiterated that statutory remedies provided under the code must be exhausted before invoking the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction.
Compliance with Escalation Hierarchy: Omprakash Ambedkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2025 SC 970
Emphasised that adherence to statutory preconditions ensures police accountability while simultaneously weeding out frivolous or premature criminal complaints.
Territorial Jurisdiction & “Zero FIR” Mandate
Jurisdiction Cannot Block Registration: Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 1 SCC 1
Lack of territorial jurisdiction does not absolve a police officer from registering a cognisable complaint.
Territorial disputes are resolved subsequently by transferring the case file.
The mandate for “Zero FIR” (registering irrespective of territorial jurisdiction) is now explicitly given statutory recognition under Section 173(1) of the BNSS.
Mandatory Zero FIR System: Kirti Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11713
Affirmed the Zero FIR mandate: police must immediately record a complaint alleging a cognisable offence irrespective of where the crime occurred, assign it a serial number “0”, and transfer it to the police station having proper territorial jurisdiction.
Delayed FIR, Evidentiary Value & Victim Rights
Importance of Promptness: Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 3 SCC 393
Prompt lodging of an FIR ensures an authentic, unembellished, and immediate account of the crime, mitigating the risk of fabrication or post-facto embellishment.
Delay Not Automatically Fatal: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gian Chand, (2001) 6 SCC 71
A delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal to the prosecution’s case provided the delay is reasonably and satisfactorily explained by the circumstances.
Strict Duty in Serious Offence Cases: Mukesh & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 6 SCC 1 (Nirbhaya Case)
Highlighted the critical need for immediate police action and FIR registration in cases involving sexual violence and severe offences against vulnerable groups, where delay severely compromises victim protection and fair trial rights.
Strict Police Accountability & Criminal Sanctions
Legal Consequences for Refusal: Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1
Directly mandated departmental disciplinary action against delinquent officers who refuse or fail to register an FIR upon disclosure of a cognisable offence.
Latest Case Laws
Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 350
Reaffirmed that registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC (now Section 173 BNSS) if the information discloses a cognisable offence, and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such situations.
The scope of any preliminary inquiry is strictly limited to cases where the information does not prima facie disclose a cognisable offence.
Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. Seesh Ram Saini & Ors., 2025 INSC 1095
Held that police are not required to examine the genuineness or credibility of information at the stage of FIR registration.
If a prima facie cognisable offence is disclosed, registration is mandatory; a preliminary enquiry report cannot oust the power of a constitutional court to direct FIR registration.
Amit Kumar v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 384 (Criminal Appeal)
Clarified that Section 174 CrPC enquiries into apparent cause of death cannot substitute for FIR registration and investigation under Section 154 CrPC (now Section 173 BNSS) when cognisable offences (including under the SC/ST (PoA) Act) are disclosed.
No preliminary inquiry is permissible in such cases, and police must register FIRs promptly.
Conclusion
Collectively, these Supreme Court decisions establish an unambiguous legal framework that prioritises prompt FIR registration as a statutory obligation rather than a matter of police discretion, while balancing safeguards against frivolous complaints through structured escalation hierarchies and limited preliminary enquiries.
The recent rulings of 2025 further fortify this architecture under the BNSS, ensuring that neither credibility assessments nor procedural technicalities can obstruct the initiation of criminal law.
Ultimately, these judgements not only enhance police accountability but also reaffirm that the rule of law demands equal and immediate access to justice for every citizen, irrespective of the nature or location of the alleged offence.
