Under which circumstances person accused of offences under SC& ST(Atrocities) Act is entitled to be released on Anticipatory bail?

 The basic ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 3(1)(u) of the Act, 1989 are:

a. Accused should not be a member of the Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribe;

b. Accused should by words, either written or spoken, or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise;

c. Promote or attempt to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will against members of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribes.

{Para 76}

77. In our opinion, there is nothing to even prima facie indicate that the appellant by publishing the video on YouTube promoted or attempted to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will against the members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. The video has nothing to do in general with the members of Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe. His target was just the complainant alone. The offence under Section 3(1)(u) will come into play only when any person is trying to promote ill feeling or enmity against the members of the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes as a group and not as individuals.

vi. Whether mere knowledge of the caste identity of the complainant is sufficient to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989?

78. It was also sought to be argued that the appellant knew very well that the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste and despite such knowledge if he went on to make derogatory utterances in the video then the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) respectively of the Act, 1989 could be said to have been prima facie made out.

79. We find no merit in the aforesaid submission. Wherever the legislature intended that mere knowledge of the fact that the victim is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would be sufficient to constitute an offence under the Act, 1989, it has said so in so many words. We may reproduce some of the relevant provisions where knowledge that the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes is sufficient in itself to constitute the offence:

80. At the cost of repetition, the words in Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are altogether different. Mere knowledge of the fact that the victim is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989. As discussed earlier, the offence must have been committed against the person on the ground or for the reason that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. When we are considering whether prima facie materials exist, warranting arrest of the appellant, there is nothing to indicate that the allegations/statements alleged to have been made by the appellant were for the reason that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste.

81. The High Court in its impugned order has observed “materials on record do indicate that the video is intended to insult and humiliate the second respondent.” The High Court may be right in observing that the intention of the appellant could have been to insult and humiliate the complainant but the High Court failed to consider whether such insult or humiliation was on account of or for the reason that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste. Is it the case of the complainant that had he not belonged to a Scheduled Caste, the appellant would not have levelled the allegations? The answer lies in the question itself.

 In the Supreme Court of India

(Before J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.)

Shajan Skaria Vs  State of Kerala and Another 

Criminal Appeal No. 2622 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8081 of 2023)

Decided on August 23, 2024

Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249.

Print Page

Supreme Court Mandates Preliminary Inquiry Before FIR On Certain Offences Related To Speech & Expressions

 At this stage, we may refer to Clause (a) of Article 51-A of the Constitution, which reads thus:

"51-A. Fundamental duties.-It shall be the duty of every citizen of India-

(a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem;

The police officers must abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals. The philosophy of the Constitution and its ideals can be found in the preamble itself. The preamble lays down that the people of India have solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic and to secure all its citizens liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. Therefore, liberty of thoughts and expression is one of the ideals of our Constitution. Article 19(1)(a) confers a fundamental right on all citizens to freedom of speech and expression. The police machinery is a part of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Moreover, the police officers being citizens, are bound to abide by the Constitution. They are bound to honour and uphold freedom of speech and expression conferred on all citizens. Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution carves out an exception to the fundamental right guaranteed under sub- Clause (a) of Clause (1) of Article 19. If there is a law covered by Clause (2), its operation remains unaffected by sub- Clause (a) of Clause (1). We must remember that laws covered by the Clause (2) are protected by way of an exception provided they impose a reasonable restriction. Article 19(2) is an exception to the freedom enumerated Under Article 19(1)(a). The reasonable restrictions provided for in Article 19(2) must remain reasonable and not fanciful and oppressive. Article 19(2) cannot be allowed to overshadow the substantive rights Under Article 19(1), including the right to freedom of speech and expression. Therefore, when an allegation is of the commission of an offence covered by the law referred to in Clause (2) of Article 19, if Sub-section (3) of Section 173 is applicable, it is always appropriate to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the Accused. This will ensure that the fundamental rights guaranteed under Sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) of Article 19 remain protected. Therefore, in such cases, the higher police officer referred to in Sub-section (3) of Section 173 must normally grant permission to the police officer to conduct a preliminary inquiry. Therefore, when the commission of cognizable offences is alleged, where punishment is for imprisonment up to 7 years, which is based on spoken or written words, it will always be appropriate to exercise the option Under Sub-section (3) of Section 173 and conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case to proceed. If an option Under Sub-section (3) is not exercised by the police officer in such a case, he may end up registering an FIR against a person who has exercised his fundamental right Under Article 19(1)(a) even though Clause (2) of Article 19 is not attracted. If, in such cases, the option Under Sub-section (3) of Section 173 is not exercised, it will defeat the very object of incorporating Sub-section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS and will also defeat the obligation of the police Under Article 51-A(a). {Para 29}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1545 of 2025

Decided On: 28.03.2025

Imran Pratapgadhi Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.

Author: Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0408/2025,2025 INSC 410.

Print Page

Supreme Court: It is not necessary to conduct preliminary inquiry as per Lalita kumari's Judgment if cognizable offence is made out against accused

 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. {Para 12}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1313 of 2025.

Decided On: 17.03.2025

Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath and P.B. Varale, JJ.

Author: Vikram Nath, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 350,MANU/SC/0346/2025.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: 'Lalita Kumari' Judgment Doesn't Create Absolute Rule That Preliminary Enquiry Is Necessary In Every Case Before FIR

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 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 Code of Criminal Procedure 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. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1313 of 2025.

Decided On: 17.03.2025

Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath and P.B. Varale, JJ.

Author: Vikram Nath, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 350,MANU/SC/0346/2025.

Print Page

SOP on preliminary enquiry by police under BNSS 2023

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TsMTdAS3NJMJ0C6FupMmYpd-MZk9_jj9/view?usp=sharing

Print Page

Whether prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act can be quashed if no preliminary inquiry was conducted prior to registration of offence?

The scope and ambit of a preliminary inquiry being necessary before lodging an FIR would depend upon the facts of each case. There is no set format or manner in which a preliminary inquiry is to be conducted. The objective of the same is only to ensure that a criminal investigation process is not initiated on a frivolous and untenable complaint. That is the test laid down in Lalita Kumari.

33. In the present case, the FIR itself shows that the information collected is in respect of disproportionate assets of the Accused Officer. The purpose of a preliminary inquiry is to screen wholly frivolous and motivated complaints, in furtherance of acting fairly and objectively. Herein, relevant information was available with the informant in respect of prima facie allegations disclosing a cognizable offence. Therefore, once the officer recording the FIR is satisfied with such disclosure, he can proceed against the Accused even without conducting any inquiry or by any other manner on the basis of the credible information received by him. It cannot be said that the FIR is liable to be quashed for the reason that the preliminary inquiry was not conducted. The same can only be done if upon a reading of the entirety of an FIR, no offence is disclosed. Reference in this regard, is made to a judgment of this Court reported as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal MANU/SC/0115/1992 : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 wherein, this Court held inter alia that where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Accused and also where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the Accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

34. Therefore, we hold that the preliminary inquiry warranted in Lalita Kumari is not required to be mandatorily conducted in all corruption cases. It has been reiterated by this Court in multiple instances that the type of preliminary inquiry to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. There are no fixed parameters on which such inquiry can be said to be conducted. Therefore, any formal and informal collection of information disclosing a cognizable offence to the satisfaction of the person recording the FIR is sufficient.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1662 of 2019  and Criminal Appeal No. 1663 of 2019 

Decided On: 06.12.2019

 The State of Telangana  Vs.  Managipet

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ.

Print Page

Whether non supply of copies of statements of witnesses recorded during preliminary enquiry will vitiate departmental enquiry?

Now, one of the principles of natural justice is that a person against whom an action is proposed to be taken has to be given an opportunity of hearting. This opportunity has to be an effective opportunity and not a mere pretence. In departmental proceedings where charge-sheet is issued and the documents which are proposed to be utilised against that person are indicated in the charge sheet but copies thereof are not supplied to him in spite of his request, and he is, at the same time, called upon to submit his reply, it cannot be said that an effective opportunity to defend was provided to him. see: Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0617/1987 : [1988]1SCR1102 ; Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India and Ors., MANU/SC/0086/1986 : (1986)IILLJ468SC and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Sharif, MANU/SC/0198/1982 : (1982)IILLJ180SC .

5. In High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Amrik Singh, MANU/SC/0917/1995 : (1995)IILLJ656SC , it was indicated that the delinquent officer must be supplied copies of documents relied upon in support of the charges. It was further indicated that if the documents are voluminous and copies cannot be supplied, then such officer must be given an opportunity to inspect the same, or else, the principles of natural justice would be violated.

6. Preliminary inquiry which is conducted invariably on the back of the delinquent employee may, often, constitute the whole basis of the charge-sheet. Before a person is, therefore, called upon to submit his reply to the charge sheet, he must, on a request made by him in that behalf, be supplied the copies of the statements of witnesses recorded during the preliminary enquiry particularly if those witnesses are proposed to be examined at the departmental trial. This principle was reiterated in Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India and Ors., MANU/SC/0086/1986 : (1986)IILLJ468SC (supra), wherein it was also laid down that this lapse would vitiate the departmental proceedings unless it was shown and established as a fact that non-supply of copies of those documents had not caused any prejudice to the delinquent in his defence.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

C.A. No. 2469 of 1982

Decided On: 30.07.1998

 State of U.P.  Vs.  Shatrughan Lal and Ors.

Citation: (1998) 6 SCC 651

Print Page

Whether delinquent employee is entitled to get copy of preliminary inquiry report?

 I am also not impressed by the submission canvassed on behalf of
the petitioner that despite making a request for supply of a copy of the
report of the preliminary inquiry, such report was not provided to the
petitioner. The law in this regard is also well settled. 
 In Vijay Kumar Nigam v. State of M.P. [AIR 1997 SC 1358], the
Supreme Court took the view that  the preliminary report is only to
decide and assess whether it would be necessary to take any disciplinary
action against the delinquent officer and it does not form any foundation
for passing the order of dismissal against the employee. 
 In  Krishna Chandra Tandon v. Union of India [AIR 1974 SC
1589], the Supreme Court held: 
“It   is  very   necessary   for   an   authority   which   orders   an   enquiry   to   be
satisfied   that   there   are   prima   facie   ground   for   holding   a   disciplinary
enquiry and, therefore, before he makes up his mind he will either himself
investigate or direct his subordinate to investigate in the matter and it is
only after he receives the result of these investigations that he can decide
as   to   whether   disciplinary   action   is   called   for   or   not.   Therefore,   the
documents of the nature of interdepartmental communications between
officers preliminary to the holding of enquiry have really no importance
unless the Enquiry Officer wants to rely on them for his conclusion.”
 In  Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar v. State of Maharastra

[AIR 1997 SC 2148], the Supreme Court held: 
“The preliminary enquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted
after the issue of the charge­sheet. The former action would be to find
whether disciplinary enquiry should be initiated against the delinquent.
After full­fledged enquiry had lost its importance.”
 A preliminary inquiry is conducted for the purpose of taking an
appropriate decision whether the case is one of a regular departmental
inquiry or not. Therefore, a delinquent as such is not entitled to ask, as a
matter of right, the copy of the preliminary inquiry report. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1619 of 2016

HADMATSINH NAHARSINH SISODIYA....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 15/02/2016

Print Page

Summery on judgment of lalita kumari v Govt of U P

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.
The Court held:
i) 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.
ii) 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.
iii) 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.
iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is
disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information
received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information
received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the
facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be
made are as under:
a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
b) Commercial offences
c) Medical negligence cases
d) Corruption cases
e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example,
over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for
delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant
preliminary inquiry.
vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary
inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such
delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. 
viii) Since the General
Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we
direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR
or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the
decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.

Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors. on 12 November, 2013
(P. SATHASIVAM)CJI., DR. B.S. CHAUHAN J., RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI J., RANJAN
GOGOI J., S.A. BOBDE J.)

Print Page