Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025 [Part-II]

Section 173. Information in cognizable cases.Section 154 Cr.P.C. – FIR – Held, police officers, as 'sentinels' of the law, must be vigilant, prompt and objective in performing their duties, shedding any personal biases - Police's failure to register a FIR despite being informed of a cognizable offence was a total 'dereliction of duty' - As per Section 154 CrPC, Police are duty-bound to register a cognizable offence once they receive information - Supreme Court criticized the Superintendent of Police for not taking action on a written complaint sent by appellant's father as mandated by section 154(3) CrPC - Found it distressing that senior officials did not file an affidavit in the matter before the highest court, leaving it to a local police inspector - Directed the Home Ministry to form a SIT to investigate the appellant's allegations, register an FIR for the assault and take appropriate action - Appeal allowed. [Paras 16, 18-24] Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 894 : 2025 INSC 1100Section 154 Cr.P.C. - Registration of FIR - It is the duty of the police to register an FIR if a prima facie cognizable offence is made out - The police are not required to go into the genuineness and credibility of information - High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC is not absolutely barred by the availability of alternative remedies - Held that when allegations pertain to the abuse of an official position and corrupt practices by public servants, such actions fall squarely within the category of cognizable offences that need to be inquired into - A preliminary inquiry is not necessary before the registration of an FIR in such cases - Report of a preliminary inquiry is not a conclusive report to be relied upon to oust a Constitutional Court's power to conclude that a cognizable offence has been committed - It is high time that those who investigate are also investigated to keep the public's faith in the system. [Paras 26 - 32] Vinod Kumar Pandey v. Seesh Ram Saini, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 887 : 2025 INSC 1095Section 154 Cr.P.C. - Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302 r/w. 149, 217, 218 - Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Sections 3(2)(i), 4 - Honour Killing - Police Misconduct - Evidence Fabrication - Whether the convictions of police officers for fabricating evidence and neglecting duties along with nine others were justified. Held, Police officers delayed FIR registration despite knowledge of the murders, used caste-based abuses against the family, violating Section 154 CrPC and the Lalita Kumari judgment. Inspector fabricated an extra-judicial confession, falsely implicating four Dalits and four Vanniyars in the FIR to shield the real culprits from the Vanniyar community. The case gained media attention, leading to the FIR being filed nine days after the crime. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions for neglecting duties, disobeying the law, and fabricating evidence to falsely implicate Dalits. The Court identified the primary orchestrator of the false FIR, deliberately protecting Vanniyar culprits and targeting innocent Dalits in an offence punishable by death. The convictions of nine others for the honour killing were also upheld. The Court emphasized the mandatory duty to register an FIR under Section 154 CrPC and condemned caste-based abuses and evidence manipulation targeting the Dalit community. (Para 74) K.P. Tamilmaran v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 493 : 2025 INSC 576 : AIR 2025 SC 2545Section 154 Cr.P.C. - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - A preliminary inquiry is not mandatory under the Act for initiating a corruption case against a public servant. The absence of a preliminary inquiry does not justify quashing a case against a public servant solely on that ground. (Para 12 & 16) State of Karnataka v. Sri Channakeshava H.D., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 412 : 2025 INSC 471Section 154 Cr.P.C. - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – A public servant accused in a corruption case has no inherent right to a hearing prior to the registration of an FIR. (Para 14) State of Karnataka v. Sri Channakeshava H.D., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 412 : 2025 INSC 471Section 173 (3) BNSS - Preliminary inquiry must be conducted before lodging the FIR, if the offences alleged are dealing with speech and expressions. (Para 29) Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362 : 2025 INSC 410 : AIR 2025 SC (Crl.) 679Section 173 BNSS - Police Duty and Preliminary Inquiry - Under Section 173(1) of the BNSS, registering an FIR is mandatory for cognizable offences, but Section 173(3) allows a preliminary inquiry for offences punishable between 3 and 7 years to ascertain a prima facie case. Here, the police failed to exercise this discretion, which could have protected the appellant's rights. Police, as part of the State under Article 12, must respect constitutional ideals. The Court criticized the lack of sensitization among police regarding Article 19(1)(a) and ...

Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025 [Part-II]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags