Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh

The story

When Lalita Kumari, a minor girl, went missing, her father rushed to the police station, desperate for help. But instead of swift action, he faced delay and reluctance—the police did not register an FIR immediately. Frustrated and fearing for his daughter's safety, he approached the courts through a habeas corpus petition, demanding that the police be compelled to act. His case exposed a deeper, systemic problem: across India, police stations often refused to register FIRs, especially in cases involving family disputes, women, or politically sensitive matters, using 'preliminary inquiry' as an excuse to delay or avoid registering complaints altogether. The Supreme Court recognized that this practice denied ordinary citizens their fundamental right to seek justice promptly. A five-judge Constitution Bench was convened to settle the law once and for all. In its landmark 2014 ruling, the Court held that when information discloses a cognizable offence, police have no choice—the FIR must be registered immediately. Only in narrow categories, like matrimonial disputes or corruption cases, could a brief, time-bound preliminary inquiry precede registration. The judgment gave ordinary citizens a powerful tool: the police could no longer turn them away at the door.

The facts

Lalita Kumari's father filed a habeas corpus petition after police failed to register an FIR or take prompt action on his complaint that his minor daughter had been kidnapped. Due to conflicting judicial precedents on whether police must register an FIR immediately upon receiving information of a cognizable offence or may first conduct a preliminary inquiry, the matter was referred to a Constitution Bench of five judges for authoritative resolution.

The question before the court

Whether registration of an FIR under Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is mandatory once information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, or whether the police may conduct a preliminary inquiry before deciding to register an FIR.

The holding

The Constitution Bench held that registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. If the information received does not clearly disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not, and such preliminary inquiry should be limited to certain categories of cases such as matrimonial/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption cases, and cases with abnormal delay in initiating criminal prosecution. The Court directed that such preliminary inquiry must be time-bound, generally not exceeding seven days, and the reasons for delay must be reflected in the General Diary entry.

The principle it stands for

Where information given to police discloses commission of a cognizable offence, registration of FIR under Section 154 CrPC is mandatory and police have no discretion to withhold it pending inquiry into the veracity of the complaint. A preliminary inquiry is permissible only in limited categories of cases to determine whether the information discloses a cognizable offence at all, and any such inquiry must be time-bound and its outcome recorded.

Provisions this case shaped

• Art. 21Protection of life and personal libertyinterpreted — Prompt FIR registration linked to victims' right to access justice and fair investigation under Article 21.