Courts Cannot Rewrite Statutory Provisions or Introduce additional procedural Safeguards that are not contemplated by law’: Supreme Court Rejects IAS Officer’s Plea for Mandatory Preliminary
Safiya Malik
The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the Gujarat High Court’s decision refusing to direct the State authorities to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering future First Information Reports (FIRs) against a retired Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer. A Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale recorded that under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, police authorities are under a statutory duty to register an FIR once information disclosing a cognizable offence is received. The Court observed that “such a direction would not only be contrary to the statutory framework of the CrPC but would also amount to judicial overreach.”
The Court declined to accept the appellant’s argument that successive FIRs against him constituted harassment and noted that “courts cannot rewrite statutory provisions or introduce additional procedural safeguards that are not contemplated by law.” The Court referred to the judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, holding that “mandatory registration of FIRs under Section 154 of the Code will not be in contravention of Article 21 of the Constitution.”
The appellant, a retired IAS officer, had approached the Supreme Court after the Gujarat High Court dismissed his petition seeking protection from further criminal proceedings without the conduct of a preliminary inquiry. The appellant, who served as the Collector of Kachchh District, Gujarat, between 2003 and 2006, faced multiple FIRs registered in connection with alleged irregularities in land allotment orders passed during his tenure. The initial FIR was lodged in 2010, followed by several additional FIRs after his retirement in 2015.
The appellant’s plea before the High Court contended that the registration of successive FIRs without any preliminary inquiry violated his right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was submitted that the FIRs were filed with an ulterior motive to subject him to continued harassment by ensuring that new cases were registered upon securing bail in existing ones.
The State of Gujarat opposed the petition, arguing that the relief sought would effectively result in a blanket protection against investigation. The State submitted that the mandatory requirement to register FIRs under Section 154 CrPC leaves no discretion to the police to withhold the registration of a cognizable offence, except in certain categories as recognised by precedent.
The High Court dismissed the petition on 31 January 2024, finding no merit in the appellant’s demand for a blanket direction for a preliminary inquiry prior to the registration of future FIRs.
The appellant subsequently approached the Supreme Court by way of a criminal appeal.
The Supreme Court, after hearing submissions from senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Solicitor General on behalf of the respondent-State, examined the legal position regarding the registration of FIRs.
The Bench recorded that “the legal position regarding the registration of FIRs in cases of cognizable offences is well settled.” The Court referred to the decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, stating that “Section 154 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.”
The Court noted that preliminary inquiry may be warranted in specific categories, such as medical negligence or commercial disputes, but observed that “in cases where the information clearly discloses a cognizable offence, the police have no discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR.”
Addressing the appellant’s argument regarding successive FIRs, the Court recorded that “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 Court further noted that “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.” It observed that the appellant has recourse to statutory remedies such as seeking quashing of FIRs under Section 482 CrPC or applying for bail.
The Bench stated that “courts cannot issue a blanket direction restraining the registration of FIRs against the appellant or mandating a preliminary inquiry in all future cases involving him.”
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, recording that “in view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.” The Court stated 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.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate
For the Respondents: Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India
Case Title: Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 350
Case Number: SLP (Crl.) No. 3154 of 2024
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Prasanna B. Varale
[Read/Download order]
