Preliminary Inquiry Report Cannot Bar Constitutional Court From Finding Directing FIR Registration: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that report of a preliminary inquiry conducted by the investigating agency cannot prevent a constitutional court from concluding that allegations disclose a prima facie cognizable offence and directing the registration of an FIR.The Court relied on its recent judgment in Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat, which held that the genuineness of complaints need not be tested before FIR registration when prima facie cognizable offences are disclosed.The Court also noted the principle from the judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. that FIR registration is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC where information discloses a cognizable offence, and no preliminary inquiry is required in such cases.The observations came while dealing with appeals by former Delhi Police Commissioner Neeraj Kumar and Inspector Vinod Kumar Pandey against Delhi High Court orders directing registration of FIRs against them for alleged offence during their deputation to the CBI in 2000–2001.A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B Varale noted that the High Court had already considered the preliminary inquiry conducted by the Joint Director of CBI but rejected its conclusion that no cognizable offence was made out. “The report of the CBI at best is a preliminary enquiry report submitted before the registration of the FIR. However, such an enquiry is not ordinarily contemplated in law before registration of FIR, and hence is not a conclusive report to be relied upon to oust the power of the Constitutional Court to record its own conclusion about commission of a cognizable offence,” the Court observed.Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar for the accused argued that the High Court had substituted its findings for those of the CBI preliminary enquiry and erred in directing the exclusion of the report from consideration during the investigation. The Supreme Court emphasized that the correctness or veracity of allegations could not be tested at the stage of a preliminary enquiry, especially where the complaints were serious in nature.It cited the judgment in Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma, which held that allegations involving abuse of official position and corrupt practices while holding public office fall within the category of cognizable offences and must be investigated. “In Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat, this Court, in a very recent judgment held, that where the allegations pertain to the abuse of official position and corrupt practices while holding public office, such actions fall squarely within category of cognizable offences and therefore, they are to be inquired into, and holding of any preliminary inquiry before the registration of the FIR is not necessary. If the information provided to the police or the preliminary report discloses a commission of a cognizable offence, the police is duty bound under Section 154 Cr.P.C. to register an FIR without any delay”, the Court said in its judgment.In the present case, the upheld the High Court's direction to register FIR against the two officers. It clarified that while the CBI preliminary inquiry report may be considered by the investigating officer if necessary, it is not conclusive and cannot restrict the investigation. Case no. – S.L.P. (C) No. 7900 of 2019 and connected casesCase Title – Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. Seesh Ram Saini & Ors. and connected casesCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 887Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Preliminary Inquiry Report Cannot Bar Constitutional Court From Finding Directing FIR Registration: Supreme Court

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags