Preliminary inquiry occupies a sensitive position in Indian criminal procedure. It may help police determine whether a complaint requires further action in the limited circumstances recognized by law. However, inquiry before registration of a First Information Report (FIR) can delay access to justice, weaken evidence,, and leave complainants and persons named in complaints exposed to uncertainty. In LalitaKumari v.v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court affirmed that FIR registration is ordinarily mandatory when information discloses a cognizable offense, while allowing limited preliminary inquiry in exceptional circumstances. Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 202(BNSS),S), now permits preliminary inquiry for a defined class of cognizable offenses punishable with imprisonment of three years or more but less than seven years, subject to prior approval by a senior police officer and completion within fourteen days. This article analyses the legal framework, the distinction between preliminary inquiry and investigation, the risks of unreasonable delay, and safeguards available to affected persons. It argues that time limits and supervisory approval are useful but insufficient without written reasons, transparent records, communication of outcomes, effective remedies, and accountability. Preliminary inquiry must remain limit, time-bound,sound, and reviewable, never a routine barrier to prompt criminal justice.