Why aren’t you filing FIRs: high court seeks affidavits from UT, Punjab, Haryana DGPs
The order was passed over two months after a Bench took suo motu cognisance of a representation by the High Court Bar Association alleging that an FIR had not been registered in connection with an assault on a lawyer.
Criticising the practice of conducting inquiries before registering FIRs, the Bench remarked that the police appeared to be putting the cart before the horse. (File) The Punjab and Haryana High Court has expressed concern over recurring complaints that the police are not registering FIRs even when information discloses cognisable offences. The court has directed the Directors General of Police of Punjab and Haryana, as well as the competent authority in Chandigarh, to submit detailed affidavits explaining the lapses and outlining action taken against erring officers.
The order was passed over two months after a Bench took suo motu cognisance of a representation by the High Court Bar Association alleging that an FIR had not been registered in connection with an assault on a lawyer.
A Bench led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu noted that the incident had occurred in December and that the FIR was eventually registered on December 16, 2025. The court observed that the police took nearly 15 days to lodge the FIR, even though the complaint, on the face of it, disclosed a cognisable offence.
The Bench also referred to additional applications filed by members of the Bar, highlighting similar instances where information regarding cognisable offences had been provided but FIRs were not registered.
Underscoring the legal position, the court said Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it mandatory for the police to register an FIR once information revealing a cognisable offence is received. It clarified that the police must first register the FIR and only thereafter proceed with inquiry or investigation.
The Bench pointed out that in several cases cited before it, FIRs had still not been registered despite clear allegations of cognisable offences, in apparent disregard of the statutory mandate.
The court reiterated that the law on the issue had been conclusively settled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari versus Government of Uttar Pradesh. It noted that only in exceptional situations has the apex court permitted a brief preliminary inquiry, and that too limited to ascertaining whether a cognisable offence is made out, without examining the truthfulness of the allegations.
Criticising the practice of conducting inquiries before registering FIRs, the Bench remarked that the police appeared to be putting the cart before the horse.
In one matter, the court observed that a closure report had been filed without an FIR having been registered in the first place, describing the approach as beyond legal comprehension. In its operative directions, the High Court asked the DGPs of Punjab and Haryana and the Chandigarh authority concerned to explain through affidavits why FIRs were not being registered despite receipt of information disclosing cognisable offences, and to detail the steps taken against officials who failed to comply with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The case has been posted for further hearing after two weeks.
Share
