In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that courts cannot rewrite statutory provisions or introduce additional procedural safeguards that are not contemplated by law. Dismissing an appeal filed by retired IAS officer Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma, the apex court held that the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if a cognizable offence is disclosed, and a preliminary inquiry is not a prerequisite in such cases.
The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale upheld the Gujarat High Court’s decision, which had rejected Sharma’s plea for a writ of mandamus directing authorities to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering any FIR against him. The court emphasized that judicial intervention cannot override statutory mandates, stating:
“The CrPC does not provide for an opportunity of explanation to an accused prior to the registration of an FIR. Courts cannot rewrite statutory provisions or introduce additional procedural safeguards beyond what is already provided by law.”
Background of the Case
Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma, a retired IAS officer, served as the Collector of Kachchh, Gujarat, from 2003 to 2006. He has been facing multiple FIRs alleging abuse of official position, corruption, and financial irregularities in land allotments during his tenure. The first FIR was registered in 2010, followed by successive FIRs, leading to his judicial custody and ongoing trials.
Sharma approached the Gujarat High Court under Articles 14, 20, 21, 22, and 226 of the Constitution, arguing that the repeated FIRs without preliminary inquiry violated his fundamental rights and were meant to harass him. He contended that under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2014), authorities must conduct a preliminary inquiry before filing an FIR in cases involving allegations of abuse of official position.
However, the State of Gujarat opposed the plea, arguing that under Section 154 of the CrPC, police are duty-bound to register an FIR upon receiving information about a cognizable offence. The High Court agreed with this view and dismissed Sharma’s petition on January 31, 2024.
Supreme Court’s Observations & Ruling
Challenging the High Court’s decision, Sharma filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, while the State of Gujarat was represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, reiterated the principles laid down in Lalita Kumari and clarified that while a preliminary inquiry may be required in certain cases—such as medical negligence, commercial disputes, or family matters—no such requirement exists when a clear cognizable offence is disclosed. The court observed:
“The scope of a preliminary inquiry is limited to situations where the information received does not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence but requires verification. However, in cases where allegations clearly indicate abuse of official position and corruption, no such discretion exists.”
The court further noted that the appellant has adequate legal remedies available, including:
The right to seek anticipatory bail
The right to challenge malicious prosecution
The right to approach the court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing frivolous FIRs
The bench categorically rejected Sharma’s request for a blanket order mandating preliminary inquiry before registering FIRs against him, stating:
“Issuing such a direction would amount to judicial overreach. Courts cannot alter statutory provisions or add procedural safeguards that are not envisaged by law.”
Upholding the Gujarat High Court’s ruling, the Supreme Court dismissed Sharma’s appeal, stating that he had failed to establish a violation of his fundamental rights. However, the court clarified that this judgment does not preclude Sharma from seeking remedies under existing legal provisions for pending or future cases.
