What the Supreme Court has ruled about FIRs, arrest and the police

The police must register an FIR for a cognizable offence

Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1, decided by a Constitution Bench, holds that registration of an FIR is mandatory when the information discloses a cognizable offence, and no preliminary inquiry is permitted in such a case. A preliminary inquiry is allowed only in limited categories — matrimonial and family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption, and cases with abnormal delay — and the judgment required it to be completed within seven days. Separately, BNSS section 173(3) now lets an officer hold a preliminary enquiry, within 14 days, before registering an FIR for an offence punishable with three to seven years, with a senior officer's permission — a statutory route that did not exist under the old Code.

What this means in practice: if a station officer refuses to record a cognizable complaint, that refusal is contrary to a binding judgment. The remedies are a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, and then a complaint to the Magistrate under the provision that lets a Magistrate order an investigation.

Arrest is not automatic, even in a serious-sounding case

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 holds that for offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, police must not arrest mechanically. The officer must record reasons showing the arrest is necessary, issue a notice of appearance instead where it is not, and the Magistrate must apply their mind before authorising detention. The judgment was given in a dowry-cruelty case but applies to every offence in that punishment range.

The same requirements now appear in statute in BNSS section 35 (formerly CrPC sections 41 and 41A).

Rules to be followed on every arrest

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 laid down requirements that still govern custody:

• The arresting officers must wear accurate, visible identification, and an arrest memo must be prepared, attested by a family member or a respectable local person, and countersigned by the arrested person with the time and date.
• A relative or friend must be informed of the arrest and the place of detention as soon as practicable.
• The arrested person may have a lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout.
• A medical examination must be offered every 48 hours in custody, and injuries recorded in an inspection memo.
• Copies of the documents must be sent to the Magistrate.

Failure to follow these is contempt of court and a ground for departmental action, besides compensation.

Custodial violence and compensation

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746 established that the constitutional courts can award compensation directly for a death or injury in custody, as a public-law remedy — the family need not wait for a civil suit. Sube Singh v. State of Haryana (2006) 3 SCC 178 set out how such claims are assessed.

Where a person dies in custody, a judicial magistrate's inquiry is mandatory, and the National Human Rights Commission must be informed within 24 hours.

Handcuffs and the treatment of an accused

Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCC 526 holds that routine handcuffing is unconstitutional; it needs recorded justification and, ordinarily, the court's permission.

How to use this

These judgments are cited by name and citation in a written complaint, a bail application or a habeas corpus petition. A person who believes the police have refused an FIR, arrested without justification, or ill-treated someone in custody should put the facts in writing, keep a copy with an acknowledgement, and take the written record to an advocate or the District Legal Services Authority for free legal aid.