VINOD KUMAR PANDEY VERSUS SEESH RAM SAINI (SUPREME COURT) 2025 INSC 1095

(i) In Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat, (2025) 4 SCC 818 the Supreme Court 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.

(ii) 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, if any, on the material or the allegations in the complaints.

(iii) Undoubtedly, the High Court(s) should discourage writ petitions or petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where alternative remedies are available. Nonetheless, as observed even in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 it is equally true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction or the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(iv) In Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2006) 2 SCC 677, the Court denounced the dismissal of the petition seeking registration of the FIR, solely on the ground of alternative remedy, and held that ground of alternative remedy would not be a substitute in law for refusing to register a case when the complaint of the citizen makes it a cognizable offence.

(v) In a recent landmark decision, Anurag Bhatnagar & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.10, the Supreme Court held that although the complainant approached the Court, in that case the Magistrate, without exhausting the alternative remedies available, it was a mere procedural irregularity and not illegality, as the Court was competent to order registration of the FIR. It was further observed that when information disclosing commission of cognizable offence is conveyed to the police, they cannot refuse to register the FIR.

(vi) Since, it is the duty of the police to register an FIR if a prima facie cognizable offence is made out, the police is not required to go into the genuineness and credibility of the said information. It has been so laid down very clearly in Ramesh Kumari (2006) 2 SCC 677 that the genuineness or credibility of the information is not the condition precedent for registration of an FIR.

(vii) It would however, not be a prudent exercise at this stage to scuttle the registration of the FIR or the investigation, when the High Court in exercise of its constitutional powers had opined that prima facie, a cognizable offence is made out against the two officers, that too upon elaborate consideration of the preliminary inquiry report of the Joint Director of CBI

(viii) Secondly, in view of the law laid down in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 1, and reiterated thereafter to the effect that registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 Cr.P.C. if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry before FIR is permissible in such a situation; however, if the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates necessity of an inquiry being conducted, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain facts disclosing cognizable offence, if any. Thus, treating the inquiry conducted by the Joint Director, CBI as a preliminary inquiry, we permit the same to be looked into, if necessary, by the I.O. during the investigation by him, but not to treat it as conclusive. The I.O. would conduct the investigation strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any finding or observation made by the High Court in the impugned order(s) or by this Court hereinabove and shall conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months as the matter is quite old