MP High Court Questions Legality of Police Inquiry Without FIR in Cognizable Case
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has raised serious questions about police procedures after learning that authorities conducted an investigation into a cognizable offence without first registering a First Information Report (FIR). In a significant development, the court has directed the Superintendent of Police of Narsinghpur district to personally file an affidavit explaining the legal basis for such action.
Court's Concern Over Police Procedure
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice A K Singh was hearing an appeal seeking exhumation of a body for a fresh post-mortem examination. During the proceedings, government counsel informed the court that a preliminary inquiry had been conducted by the Station House Officer of Ganj police station in Narsinghpur district. This inquiry reportedly concluded that the complaint did not warrant registration of an FIR.
The Bench immediately questioned under which legal provisions such an inquiry was conducted without registering an FIR in a matter where a cognizable offence was alleged. The government advocate submitted that the inquiry was carried out in compliance with an earlier order of a Single Bench of the high court and directions issued by the Superintendent of Police on November 11, 2025.
Legal Provisions and Supreme Court Guidelines
Expressing concern, the Division Bench observed that the complaint was filed with the specific request to register a cognizable offence. The court asked how police could proceed with an investigation without first registering an FIR, and how such directions could be issued by the SP or acted upon without following statutory provisions.
The court noted that police authorities are bound by legal provisions and Supreme Court guidelines regarding registration of FIRs in cognizable cases. It directed the SP, Narsinghpur, to personally submit an affidavit clarifying the procedure adopted and explaining the legal basis for conducting an inquiry without FIR registration.
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed by Jabalpur resident Kasimuddin Qureshi, who stated that his brother, Gayasuddin Qureshi, a resident of Boripar village in Narsinghpur district, met with an accident on March 26, 2025. He was admitted in critical condition to a hospital in Jabalpur and was referred to Nagpur for further treatment the following day, where he died.
The petitioner pointed out that the discharge summary from the Jabalpur hospital mentioned injury marks on his brother's chest. He argued that under these circumstances, the death could not be presumed to be natural and sought a fresh post-mortem after exhumation of the body.
Previous Legal Proceedings
Qureshi had earlier submitted an application to the SP, Narsinghpur, seeking investigation and re-post-mortem. When no action was taken, he approached the high court. A Single Bench had dismissed the earlier petition, observing that the deceased was buried on March 27, 2025, and that there was no material on record to suggest that the original post-mortem was conducted with malafide intent or in violation of procedure.
The court had noted that mere mention of injury in the discharge summary was not sufficient to presume homicidal death or to order re-examination. Challenging that order, the petitioner filed the present appeal, which has now led to the Division Bench seeking an explanation from the district police chief on the issue of conducting an inquiry without registering an FIR.
Next Hearing Scheduled
The matter has been posted for further hearing on March 31, when the court will examine the affidavit submitted by the Superintendent of Police and consider the legal implications of police conducting investigations into cognizable offences without proper FIR registration.
This case highlights important questions about police procedure and adherence to legal requirements in criminal investigations, particularly regarding the mandatory registration of FIRs in cognizable offence cases as per established legal provisions and Supreme Court guidelines.
