PRADEEP NIRANKARNATH SHARMAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

                  [2025] 4 S.C.R. 32 : 2025 INSC 350

                     Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma
                                  v.
                        State of Gujarat & Ors.
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 1313 of 2025)
                                 17 March 2025
            [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Does the decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh
       & Ors. [2013] 14 SCR 713 create an absolute rule that a preliminary
       inquiry must be conducted in every case before the registration
       of an FIR.

                                   Headnotes†
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.154 – The appellant
       placed reliance on Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar
       Pradesh & Ors., to argue that the registration of an FIR should
       be preceded by a preliminary inquiry in cases involving
       allegations of abuse of official position – Correctness:
       Held: The scope of a preliminary inquiry, as clarified in the Lalita
       Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 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 – The decision in Lalita Kumari
       does not create an absolute rule that a preliminary inquiry must
       be conducted in every case before the registration of an FIR –
       Rather, it reaffirms the settled principle that the police authorities
       are obligated to register an FIR when the information received
       prima facie discloses a cognizable offence. [Para 12]

       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.154 – The High Court
       dismissed the appellant’s plea seeking a writ of mandamus
       directing the respondent authorities to conduct a preliminary
       inquiry before registering any First Information Report against
       him for acts performed in his official capacity – Correctness:

* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                               33

        Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat & Ors.


     Held: 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 appellant has adequate remedies under the law,
     including the right to seek quashing of frivolous FIRs u/s. 482
     CrPC, the right to apply for bail, and the right to challenge any
     illegal actions of the investigating authorities before the appropriate
     forum. [Para 13]

     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – FIR – Statutory framework –
     Judicial overreach – Whether this Court can issue a blanket
     direction restraining the registration of FIRs against the
     appellant or mandating a preliminary inquiry in all future
     cases involving him:
     Held: This Court cannot issue a blanket direction restraining the
     registration of FIRs against the appellant 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. [Para 14]

                               Case Law Cited
     Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2013] 14
     SCR 713 : (2014) 2 SCC 1 – relied on.

                                 List of Acts
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                              List of Keywords
     Section 154 of CrPC; Preliminary inquiry before registering FIR;
     Cognizable offences; Statutory obligation; Judicial overreach; Abuse
     of official position; Corruption; Financial irregularities; Successive
     FIRs; Blanket protection against investigation.
34                                                            [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


                              Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       1313 of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 31.01.2024 of the High Court
       of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in SCA No. 1321 of 2024

                           Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant:
       Kapil Sibal, Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Advs., Divyesh Pratap Singh,
       Ms. Rupali Francesca Samuel, Rajesh Inamdar, Ajay Desai, Amit
       Sangwan.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Mitesh Amin, A.A.G., Maninder
       Singh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Kanu Agarwal, Ms. Neha Singh.

                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                     Judgment

       Vikram Nath, J.

1.     Leave granted.
2.     The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order
       dated 31.01.2024 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in R/Special
       Criminal Application (Direction) No. 1321 of 2024, whereby the High
       Court dismissed the appellant’s plea seeking a writ of mandamus
       directing the respondent authorities to conduct a preliminary inquiry
       before registering any First Information Report1 against him for acts
       performed in his official capacity.
3.     The facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellant is
       a retired Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer who served
       in various administrative capacities, including as the Collector of
       Kachchh District, Gujarat, between 2003 and 2006. Several FIRs
       have been registered against the appellant in connection with alleged
       irregularities in land allotment orders passed during his tenure as the



1     FIR
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                              35

            Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat & Ors.


      Collector. The allegations against the appellant primarily pertain to
      abuse of official position, corrupt practices, and financial irregularities
      in the allotment of government land. It is pertinent to note that the
      first FIR in this regard was registered in 2010, followed by successive
      FIRs lodged against the appellant. The appellant has remained in
      judicial custody over the course of this period in connection with
      these cases, and trials are ongoing before competent Courts.
4.    Aggrieved by the registration of multiple FIRs, the appellant
      approached the High Court of Gujarat by way of a writ petition under
      Articles 14, 20, 21, 22, and 226 of the Constitution of India. The
      primary relief sought in the writ petition was for the issuance of a
      writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction,
      directing the respondent authorities to conduct a preliminary inquiry
      before registering any further FIRs against him. The appellant
      contended that his Fundamental Rights, particularly his right to liberty
      under Article 21, were being violated due to successive and arbitrary
      registration of criminal cases without conducting a preliminary inquiry.
      He further contended that these FIRs were lodged with an ulterior
      motive to harass him and prevent him from effectively defending
      himself in the pending cases. In support of his submissions, the
      appellant placed reliance on the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in
      Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,2 to argue
      that the registration of an FIR should be preceded by a preliminary
      inquiry in cases involving allegations of abuse of official position.
5.    The State of Gujarat, opposing the petition, argued before the High
      Court that the relief sought by the appellant was legally untenable. It
      was contended that under the settled position of law, once information
      regarding the commission of a cognizable offence is received, the
      police authorities are duty-bound to register an FIR under Section 154
      of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.3 The State further argued
      that granting the appellant’s request for a mandatory preliminary
      inquiry would amount to granting him a blanket protection against
      investigation, which is impermissible under law. The State also
      submitted that the appellant’s reliance on Lalita Kumari (supra) was
      misplaced, as the judgment itself clarified that preliminary inquiry is


2    (2014) 2 SCC 1
3    CrPC
36                                                           [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


      required only in limited categories of cases, such as family disputes,
      commercial matters, and medical negligence cases, and not where
      clear allegations of cognizable offences exist.
6.    The High Court, after hearing both parties, dismissed the appellant’s
      writ petition. The High Court held that once a cognizable offence is
      disclosed in the complaint, the police authorities are under a statutory
      obligation to register an FIR and conduct an investigation. Relying
      on the principles laid down in Lalita Kumari (supra), the High Court
      observed that a preliminary inquiry is warranted only in cases where
      there is doubt as to whether a cognizable offence is disclosed. However,
      in the present case, where clear allegations of corruption and abuse
      of official position have been made against the appellant, the police
      authorities have no discretion to withhold the registration of an FIR.
      The High Court further observed that granting a blanket direction for
      a preliminary inquiry in all cases involving the appellant would amount
      to judicial legislation, which is impermissible. The High Court noted
      that the CrPC does not provide for an opportunity of explanation to an
      accused prior to the registration of an FIR. In view of these findings,
      the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the appellant
      had failed to make out a case for the interference prayed for.
7.    The appellant, aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition, has
      approached this Court by way of the present appeal. The primary
      contention raised by the appellant before this Court is that multiple
      FIRs have been registered against him in a sequential manner,
      particularly after he secured bail in previous cases, and that the
      registration of such successive FIRs without a preliminary inquiry
      amounts to an abuse of process. It has been argued that such
      arbitrary registration of FIRs violates the principles of fairness and
      due process enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
      India. The appellant has once again relied on Lalita Kumari (supra)
      to assert that the respondent authorities ought to have conducted
      a preliminary inquiry before proceeding with the registration of
      successive FIRs against him.
8.    We have heard Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel for the appellant
      and Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing for the
      respondents at length.
9.    Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contended that
      the appellant, a retired IAS officer, has been subjected to sustained
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                         37

        Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat & Ors.


     and unwarranted harassment through the registration of multiple FIRs,
     all of which relate to actions performed in his official capacity while
     serving as the Collector of District Kachchh. It was argued that after
     the first FIR was lodged in connection with certain land allotment
     decisions taken by the appellant in his official tenure, a pattern
     emerged wherein successive FIRs were registered immediately upon
     his release on bail, thereby ensuring his continued incarceration. Mr.
     Sibal submitted that such successive registration of FIRs, without
     conducting any preliminary inquiry to assess whether a cognizable
     offence was made out, violates the principles of natural justice and
     the fundamental right to liberty enshrined under Articles 14, 20,
     and 21 of the Constitution. Placing reliance on the judgment of the
     Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari (Supra), it was urged
     that preliminary inquiry is mandatory in cases where the allegations
     do not prima facie disclose a cognizable offense. It was further
     argued that the State’s conduct in registering successive FIRs,
     despite the appellant’s superannuation in 2015, reflects an ulterior
     motive to harass him, rather than a bona fide attempt to investigate
     any alleged wrongdoing. It was thus prayed that the respondent
     authorities be directed to mandatorily conduct a preliminary inquiry
     before registering any further FIR against the appellant and that
     he be granted an opportunity to provide his explanation before any
     fresh investigation is initiated.
10. Per contra, the learned Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of
    the respondent-State, vehemently opposed the appeal, arguing
    that the petition itself is legally untenable and misconceived. It was
    submitted that the appellant has sought a blanket order directing the
    authorities to conduct a preliminary inquiry before the registration
    of an FIR, which is impermissible under the settled principles of
    law. It was further contended that under Section 154 of the CrPC,
    the registration of an FIR is mandatory if the information received
    discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, and the police
    have no discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry except in limited
    circumstances as laid down in Lalita Kumari (supra). The State
    also asserted that there is no statutory provision requiring the
    accused to be given an opportunity to explain his position before the
    registration of an FIR, as such a practice would amount to granting
    an undue advantage to persons accused of serious offences and
    would hinder the investigation process. Additionally, it was argued
38                                                          [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


      that the appellant’s plea, if granted, would set a dangerous precedent
      wherein public servants accused of corruption or misconduct could
      claim immunity by demanding a pre-FIR hearing. The respondent
      further contended that adequate legal safeguards are available
      to the appellant under the existing legal framework, including the
      right to seek anticipatory bail and the right to challenge malicious
      prosecution before the appropriate forums. Accordingly, it was urged
      that the appeal be dismissed.
11. We have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant and
    perused the records. The legal position regarding the registration of
    FIRs in cases of cognizable offences is well settled. This Court, in
    Lalita Kumari (supra), has categorically held that the registration
    of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC if the information
    discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The relevant
    paragraphs from the judgment of this Court in Lalita Kumari (supra)
    are reproduced below:
           “114. It is true that a delicate balance has to be maintained
           between the interest of the society and protecting the
           liberty of an individual. As already discussed above, there
           are already sufficient safeguards provided in the Code
           which duly protect the liberty of an individual in case of
           registration of false FIR. At the same time, Section 154
           was drafted keeping in mind the interest of the victim
           and the society. Therefore, we are of the cogent view
           that mandatory registration of FIRs under Section 154
           of the Code will not be in contravention of Article 21
           of the Constitution as purported by various counsel.
           Exceptions
           115. Although, we, in unequivocal terms, hold that Section
           154 of the Code postulates the mandatory registration
           of FIRs on receipt of all cognizable offences, yet, there
           may be instances where preliminary inquiry may be
           required owing to the change in genesis and novelty
           of crimes with the passage of time. One such instance
           is in the case of allegations relating to medical negligence
           on the part of doctors. It will be unfair and inequitable to
           prosecute a medical professional only on the basis of the
           allegations in the complaint.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                          39

        Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat & Ors.


           …
           Conclusion/Directions
           120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
           120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under
           Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses
           commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary
           inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
           120.2. If the information received does not disclose a
           cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an
           inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to
           ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
           120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a
           cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases
           where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint,
           a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to
           the first informant forthwith and not later than one week.
           It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint
           and not proceeding further.”
                                               [Emphasis supplied]

12. The scope of a preliminary inquiry, as clarified in the said judgment,
    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. The decision in Lalita Kumari (supra) does not
    create an absolute rule that a preliminary inquiry must be conducted
    in every case before the registration of an FIR. Rather, it reaffirms
    the settled principle that the police authorities are obligated to
    register an FIR when the information received prima facie discloses
    a cognizable offence.
13. 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
40                                                          [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


      with an ulterior motive is a matter that can be examined during the
      course of investigation and trial. 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.
14. Further, this Court cannot issue a blanket direction restraining the
    registration of FIRs against the appellant 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.
15. 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.

      Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.



      †
          Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan