AMIT KUMAR & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1579 · Decided: 24-03-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Directions issued

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1579 : 2025 INSC 384
Amit Kumar & Ors.  
v. 
Union of India & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1425 of 2025)
24 March 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
(i)	
What is the scope of section 174 CrPC and how is it different 
from investigation pursuant to filing of FIR under section 154 
CrPC.
(ii)	
Whether recourse to inquest proceedings under Section 
174 of the CrPC by the Police obviates the requirement of 
registration of F.I.R. under section 154 of CrPC.
(iii)	 What is the settled law with regard to registration of FIR as 
laid down by this Hon’ble Court.
(iv)	 Whether the High Court was right in passing the impugned 
order rejecting the prayer for issue of writ of mandamus 
directing the Police to register FIR and investigate on it.
Headnotes†
Scope of inquiry under section 174 CrPC – Explained:
Held: Section 174 CrPC inquiry is limited in scope – Its purpose is 
ascertainment of the apparent cause of death – Inquest proceedings 
are concerned with discovering whether in a given case the death 
was accidental, suicidal, homicidal, or caused by an animal and 
in what manner or by what weapon or instrument the injuries on 
the body appear to have been inflicted and the evidence taken 
therefore is short as held in Chaman Lal v. Emperor, AIR 1940 Lah 
210, at 214 – Inquest proceedings are conducted by the police or a 
Magistrate and conclude with the filing of an inquest report before 
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), District Judge, or Magistrate 
as the case may be as explained in Pedda Narayana v. State of 
Andhra Pradesh,(1975) 4 SCC 153. [Paras 21-23, 26]
* Author
1580
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Section 154 CrPC – Explained with case laws:
Held: Section 154 CrPC lays down procedure for registration of 
First Information Report in cognizable offences – This Court in 
Ashok Kumar Todi v. Kishwar Jahan (2011) 3 SCC 758 explains 
procedure to be undertaken for initiating an investigation into a 
cognizable offence beginning with information about the commission 
of a cognizable offence, culminating in registration of F.I.R. and 
ending with filing of a chargesheet/challan before the competent 
court under Section 173 or a final report as the case may be – 
Objective of proceedings under Section 154(1) is explained 
by this Court in Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh 
(2016) 9 SCC 1 – Object and purpose of filing an F.I.R. though 
not substantive evidence has been explained in Sheikh Hasib 
AliasTabarak v. State of Bihar (1972) 4 SCC 773 from the point 
of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion and 
from the point of view of the investigating authorities is to obtain 
information about the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to 
take suitable steps for tracing and bringing to book the guilty party. 
[Paras 24-25, 29-30]
Investigations under sections 154 and 174 CrPC – How are 
they different:
Held: The investigations conducted under Sections 154 and 174 
of the CrPC respectively are distinct in nature and purpose – 
Investigation after registration of F.I.R. under Section 154 of the 
CrPC is an investigation into an offence and the investigation under 
Section 174 of the CrPC is an inquiry into the apparent cause of 
death – The phrase ‘investigation’ used in Section 174 CrPC is 
not to find out who are the offenders but an inquiry into the cause 
of death. [Paras 24, 27-28]
Section 154 CrPC – Settled law with respect to registration of 
FIR in light of case laws:
Held: In Thulia Kali v. State of T.N. (1972) 3 SCC 393 this Court 
held that delay in lodging FIR quite often results in embellishment 
which is a creature of afterthought and report not only gets bereft 
of the advantage of spontaneity, but there could be introduction 
of coloured, exaggerated or concocted version – In State of 
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 it was held that, 
“It is, therefore, manifestly clear that if any information disclosing 
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 
1581
Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police 
station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, 
the said police officer has no other option except to enter the 
substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register 
a case on the basis of such information.” – The ratio in Bhajan 
Lal was affirmed by a Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari v. 
Government of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1 where it

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.