Parties and roles: Lalita Kumari is the petitioner who initiated or carried the matter to the Supreme Court. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. is the respondent opposing the relief or defending the challenged action, decision, law or proceeding. The labels “plaintiff” and “defendant” are generally not used here because this is a constitutional writ proceeding. A father complained that his minor daughter had been kidnapped, but the police allegedly did not promptly register an FIR. The case exposed a recurring problem: police sometimes conducted an informal inquiry before recording information about a cognizable offence, allowing delay, manipulation or refusal. The Court had to reconcile individual protection and faithful recording of crime with concerns that false complaints could trigger immediate criminal machinery. Procedural and real-world context: 2008: Petition filed after police allegedly failed to register a complaint concerning the kidnapping of a minor girl. | 2012: Conflicting precedents led to reference to a Constitution Bench. In simple terms, the Court had to resolve is registration of an FIR mandatory when information discloses a cognizable offence? When, if ever, may police conduct a preliminary inquiry? What safeguards apply to delay or closure? The outcome mattered immediately because fIR registration is mandatory when information discloses a cognizable offence; police have no discretion to test credibility first. A limited preliminary inquiry is permissible only where the information does not clearly disclose such an offence, in categories such as matrimonial, commercial, medical-negligence, corruption and abnormally delayed complaints. Procedural setting: 2008: Petition filed after police allegedly failed to register a complaint concerning the kidnapping of a minor girl. | 2012: Conflicting precedents led to reference to a Constitution Bench. | 12 Nov 2013: Constitution Bench delivered judgment. The central problem before the Court was is registration of an FIR mandatory when information discloses a cognizable offence? When, if ever, may police conduct a preliminary inquiry? What safeguards apply to delay or closure? The controversy was considered in the framework of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ss.154, 156, 157; Police Acts/Rules, together with Constitution arts.14 and 21. The wider importance of the case lies in mandatory statutory duty; access to criminal justice; prompt FIR; limited preliminary inquiry; police accountability.

Petitioner: Section 154 CrPC uses mandatory language; once information discloses a cognizable offence, police must register an FIR. | States/police: a short preliminary inquiry may be necessary to filter fabricated or purely civil complaints and protect innocent persons. Competing positions in context: Lalita Kumari's position: as the petitioner, Lalita Kumari sought the relief indicated by the questions of law and challenged the opposing action or interpretation. The claim was that the Court should apply the governing provisions consistently with Mandatory statutory duty; access to criminal justice; prompt FIR; limited preliminary inquiry; police accountability. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.'s position: as respondent, Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. resisted that relief, defended the impugned measure or decision, or proposed a narrower interpretation of the Court's power and the applicable law. The Court therefore had to test these submissions against Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ss.154, 156, 157; Police Acts/Rules and Constitution arts.14 and 21, the record of the proceedings and binding precedent. This summary states the principal controversy in accessible language; the official judgment remains authoritative for counsel-specific submissions and paragraph references.

FIR registration is mandatory when information discloses a cognizable offence; police have no discretion to test credibility first. A limited preliminary inquiry is permissible only where the information does not clearly disclose such an offence, in categories such as matrimonial, commercial, medical-negligence, corruption and abnormally delayed complaints. Inquiry is ordinarily to finish within seven days, with reasons recorded; officers who avoid their duty may face action. Effect of the decision: the ruling explains or applies Mandatory statutory duty; access to criminal justice; prompt FIR; limited preliminary inquiry; police accountability and binds the parties to the operative directions made in W.P.(Crl.) No. 68/2008. It also guides lower courts and public authorities on materially similar questions under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ss.154, 156, 157; Police Acts/Rules. Scope and caution: only the ratio decidendi and operative directions of the signed judgment are binding; summaries should not be treated as substitutes for the judgment, separate opinions, later review orders or subsequent precedent.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ss.154, 156, 157; Police Acts/Rules

Constitution arts.14 and 21

Mandatory statutory duty; access to criminal justice; prompt FIR; limited preliminary inquiry; police accountability