Introduction:

In Kuldeep Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Another, reported in 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 239, the Supreme Court of India clarified an important principle relating to the registration of criminal cases and the duty of the police when cognizable offences are committed. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran. The Court held that the mere fact that the police attempted to reconcile a dispute between two groups does not prevent them from registering a First Information Report (FIR) if criminal acts are committed. The Court emphasized that the statutory duty of the police to take cognizance of cognizable offences cannot be curtailed by ongoing mediation or reconciliation efforts between the parties. The case arose from a dispute between two groups in a locality in the State of Punjab, involving members of a Scheduled Caste community and individuals belonging to an upper-caste group. According to the allegations, tensions erupted when drainage water was allegedly diverted into the houses of the Scheduled Caste residents, leading to confrontation and eventual violence. During the incident, the police arrived at the spot and attempted to mediate the dispute. However, the situation reportedly escalated into violence, with allegations that firearms were used and caste-based abuses were hurled at members of the Scheduled Caste community. A police officer who witnessed the events recorded the First Information Statement, based on which an FIR was registered. Subsequently, the accused persons approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which granted them anticipatory bail on the reasoning that the FIR had been registered on the basis of a police officer’s statement rather than a complaint lodged by the victims themselves. Aggrieved by this order, members of the Scheduled Caste community challenged the decision before the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court had erred in granting anticipatory bail and in doubting the validity of the FIR merely because it was based on a police statement. The appeal thus required the Supreme Court to examine whether the source of information for the FIR and the police’s attempt to reconcile the dispute could justify granting anticipatory bail despite allegations of serious offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Arguments of the Appellants:

The appellants, representing members of the Scheduled Caste community, strongly challenged the reasoning adopted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. They argued that the High Court had committed a grave error in doubting the validity of the FIR merely because it had been registered on the basis of a police officer’s statement rather than a direct complaint from the victims. According to them, the law clearly recognizes that an FIR can be registered based on any information that discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, regardless of the source from which such information originates. The appellants contended that the police officer who recorded the First Information Statement was an eyewitness to the incident and therefore competent to report the offence. They further argued that the High Court overlooked the seriousness of the allegations, which included firing of shots and caste-based abuses directed at members of the Scheduled Caste community. These allegations, they submitted, clearly attracted the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, a legislation enacted to protect historically marginalized communities from discrimination and violence. The appellants also emphasized that the police had reached the scene because tensions were already prevailing in the locality due to the dispute regarding the diversion of drainage water. While the police attempted to mediate and reconcile the dispute between the groups, the situation deteriorated and criminal acts were allegedly committed. The appellants argued that such mediation efforts by the police could not absolve the accused persons of criminal liability. They submitted that once cognizable offences were committed, the police were duty-bound under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to register an FIR and investigate the matter. Another major contention raised by the appellants was that granting anticipatory bail in cases involving offences under the SC/ST Act requires careful scrutiny because the Act contains stringent provisions intended to deter atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. They argued that the High Court had failed to properly consider whether a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act was made out before granting anticipatory bail to the accused persons. According to the appellants, the allegations of caste-based abuse and violence were sufficient to establish a prima facie case, and therefore the protection of anticipatory bail ought not to have been granted. The appellants further contended that the High Court’s reasoning could set a dangerous precedent if allowed to stand. If FIRs were to be doubted merely because they were based on police statements, it could severely undermine the ability of law enforcement agencies to act promptly in situations where victims may be unwilling or unable to immediately lodge a complaint. They emphasized that the law does not mandate that only victims can lodge an FIR; rather, any person who has knowledge of the commission of a cognizable offence can provide information leading to the registration of an FIR. On these grounds, the appellants urged the Supreme Court to set aside the High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail and to affirm the validity of the FIR registered in the case.

Arguments of the Respondents:

The respondents, on the other hand, sought to justify the anticipatory bail granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. They argued that the FIR had been registered solely on the basis of a statement made by a police officer and not by the alleged victims themselves. According to the respondents, this raised doubts about the authenticity and reliability of the allegations. They contended that if the victims had genuinely been subjected to violence and caste-based abuse, they would have come forward to lodge a complaint themselves rather than leaving it to a police officer to initiate the criminal proceedings. The respondents also emphasized that the police had arrived at the scene primarily to mediate the dispute between the two groups and attempt reconciliation. They argued that the purpose of the police presence was to defuse tensions and restore peace in the locality. In such circumstances, they claimed that the subsequent registration of an FIR based on the police officer’s statement was questionable and suggested that the incident might have been exaggerated or misinterpreted. Another argument raised by the respondents was that the dispute itself was essentially a local disagreement relating to drainage water being diverted into certain houses. They maintained that this was a civil or neighbourhood dispute that had been unnecessarily given a criminal colour. According to them, the High Court was justified in granting anticipatory bail because the allegations did not clearly establish the commission of serious offences under the SC/ST Act. The respondents further submitted that anticipatory bail is a safeguard designed to protect individuals from unnecessary arrest and harassment, especially in cases where the allegations are doubtful or motivated by personal animosity. They argued that granting anticipatory bail did not prevent the police from conducting a fair investigation but merely ensured that the accused persons would not be subjected to arbitrary arrest during the course of the investigation. Additionally, the respondents contended that the police themselves had acknowledged that they were attempting to reconcile the dispute between the groups at the time of the incident. According to them, this indicated that the situation was being handled through mediation rather than criminal prosecution. They therefore argued that the High Court had correctly considered these circumstances while granting anticipatory bail. Based on these submissions, the respondents urged the Supreme Court to uphold the High Court’s order and dismiss the appeal filed by the appellants.

Court’s Judgment:

After carefully considering the submissions made by both sides, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondents. The Court strongly disagreed with the reasoning adopted by the High Court and clarified several important legal principles relating to the registration of FIRs and the duty of the police in cases involving cognizable offences. At the outset, the Court observed that the High Court had erred in doubting the validity of the FIR merely because it was based on the statement of a police officer rather than a complaint lodged by the victims themselves. The Supreme Court emphasized that the law does not impose any such restriction on the source of information for registering an FIR. What is relevant is whether the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If it does, the police are empowered—and indeed obligated—to register an FIR and commence an investigation. The Court noted that in the present case, the police officer who recorded the First Information Statement had personally witnessed the events that unfolded during the dispute between the two groups. Therefore, the information provided by the officer constituted a valid basis for registering the FIR. The Court categorically rejected the notion that an FIR could be doubted merely because it originated from a police statement. The Supreme Court also addressed the argument that the police were engaged in reconciliation efforts at the time of the incident. The Court observed that while the police may attempt to mediate disputes and promote reconciliation between conflicting parties, such efforts cannot override their statutory duty to enforce criminal law. If criminal acts are committed during the course of a dispute, the police cannot ignore those offences simply because they are simultaneously attempting to reconcile the parties. In this regard, the Court remarked that the police themselves had acknowledged that tensions were prevailing in the locality and that criminal acts had been perpetrated during the incident. This acknowledgment, according to the Court, reinforced the need for the police to take appropriate legal action rather than disregarding the offences. The Court emphasized that reconciliation efforts cannot prevent the police from taking cognizance of criminal acts. The statutory duty of the police under criminal law requires them to register an FIR whenever they receive information indicating the commission of a cognizable offence. Any attempt to restrict this duty would undermine the administration of justice and weaken the enforcement of criminal law. The Supreme Court further observed that the allegations in the present case included serious accusations of caste-based abuse and violence directed at members of a Scheduled Caste community. Such allegations, if proven, would attract the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Court stressed that the SC/ST Act was enacted to address the persistent problem of caste-based discrimination and violence in Indian society, and therefore the courts must exercise caution while granting anticipatory bail in cases involving offences under this legislation. Upon examining the facts of the case, the Court concluded that a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act was made out against the respondents. In light of this finding, the Court held that the High Court had erred in granting anticipatory bail without adequately considering the seriousness of the allegations and the statutory framework governing such offences. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents. The Court also reaffirmed the broader principle that reconciliation or mediation efforts cannot override the statutory duty of the police to register and investigate criminal offences. By doing so, the Court underscored the importance of ensuring that attempts at maintaining peace and harmony in society do not come at the cost of ignoring criminal acts or denying justice to victims. The judgment thus serves as an important reminder that while mediation and reconciliation are valuable tools for resolving disputes, they cannot be used as a substitute for the enforcement of criminal law when serious offences have been committed.