Substantial investigation before FIR registration vitiates proceedings when police already know of a cognizable offence.

Police received information at about 9:30 a.m. on 26 February 2023 concerning alleged illegal sale of beef and conducted raids, including at a godown allegedly belonging to the petitioner, where a cattle carcass was seized.

The complaint and FIR were registered only after the raids and seizures; the Station House Diary entry was also made after those steps.

Following investigation and filing of a charge sheet, the Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Section 429 of the IPC and the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Act, 2020.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, principally arguing that the police had conducted searches and seizures before registering an FIR.

1. Whether the police’s failure to register an FIR, or record the information in the Station House Diary, before conducting the raids and seizures vitiated the proceedings

2. Whether the principles concerning preliminary inquiries discussed in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Dr. Saleem Ur Rahman and the Division Bench decision in Criminal Petition No. 506/2019 applied to the facts of this case

Section 154 CrPC, as explained in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, requires registration of an FIR upon receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence, subject to the limited exceptions recognized in that decision.

State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Dr. Saleem Ur Rahman, (2022) 13 SCC 675, concerned preliminary inquiries in Prevention of Corruption Act cases and held that such an inquiry, in appropriate circumstances, is not by itself contrary to Lalita Kumari.

The Court also considered the Division Bench ruling in Criminal Petition No. 506/2019, which held that investigation before FIR registration does not by itself vitiate proceedings absent demonstrated prejudice; the Court distinguished that principle on the facts here.

Section 482 CrPC provided the procedural basis for the petitioner’s request to quash the proceedings.

The police had received information alleging cognizable offences but did not register an FIR or make a Station House Diary entry before conducting the raids, searches and seizures; the entry and FIR followed those investigative steps.

The Court held that this was not a limited preliminary inquiry of the kind considered in Dr. Saleem Ur Rahman, particularly because that case concerned allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The petitioner also claimed that the premises belonged to his father and that he was implicated on the basis of an alleged voluntary statement, which the Court considered relevant to prejudice in the circumstances.

It therefore found the failure to comply with Section 154 before undertaking substantial investigative steps fatal to the proceedings.

It allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 364/2023, arising from Crime No. 56/2023, for the specified offences under Section 429 IPC and the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Act, 2020.