1

UNIT – 2

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

Contents
FIRST INFORMATION REPORT .......................................................................................................... 1
2.1. Meaning of FIR .................................................................................................................................... 1
2.2. Contents of the FIR .............................................................................................................................. 2
2.3. Essential ingredients of FIR ................................................................................................................ 2
(2.4.) Number of copies ............................................................................................................................... 4
(2.5.) Alternative Remedies ........................................................................................................................ 5
(2.6) Doctrines Related to FIR ................................................................................................................... 6
(2.6.1.) ‗Doctrine of updating construction‘ ............................................................................................. 6
(2.6.2.) „Doctrine of Implied Power‘ ........................................................................................................ 6
(2.6.3.) ‗Doctrine of Sameness‘ ................................................................................................................ 6
(2.7.) FIR and Further Process .................................................................................................................. 7
(2.8.) Kinds of FIR ...................................................................................................................................... 8
(2.9.) Territorial Jurisdiction of Police Station and FIR ....................................................................... 10
(2.10.) Advantage of immediate registration of FIR .............................................................................. 11
(2.11.) Delay in lodging FIR ..................................................................................................................... 11
(2.12.) Uploading of FIR on police website or official website of Government concerned ................. 11
(2.13.) Mandatory Registration of FIR and Preliminary Inquiry ........................................................ 12
(2.13.1.) Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (Nov. 12, 2013)....................................................................... 13
(2.14.) Alternative Remedies and Demand for CBI: Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. .............................. 18
(2.15.) EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF FIR ............................................................................................... 22
Section 155 ................................................................................................................................................. 24

2.1. Meaning of FIR

First Information Report (FIR) has not been defined in the Cr.P.C. Section 207 (ii) indicate that
FIR is registered under Section 154 of the Code. FIR means first time reporting of information to

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 2

the police regarding commission of cognizable offence. A criminal law comes into motion
through FIR. Police can arrest and investigate without warrant or order of a Court in cognizable
cases.
In Ravi Kumar v. State of Punjab,1 Hon‘ble Justice Arijit Pasayat said, ―The First Information
Report is a report giving information of the commission of a cognizable crime which may be
made by the complainant or by any other person knowing about the commission of such an
offence. It is intended to set the criminal law in motion. Any information relating to the
commission of a cognizable offence is required to be reduced to writing by the officer-in-charge
of the Police Station which has to be signed by the person giving it and the substance thereof is
required to be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government
may prescribe in that behalf. The registration of the FIR empowers the officer in-charge of the
Police Station to commence investigation with respect to the crime reported to him. A copy of
the FIR is required to be sent forthwith to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such
offence.‖

2.2. Contents of the FIR

In Gorle S. Naidu v. State of A.P. and Ors.2 (2003) Hon‘ble Justice Arijit Pasayat said, ―The FIR
is not supposed to be an encyclopedia of the factors concerning the crime, yet there must be
some definite information vis- a- vis (along with) the crime.‖
In the case of Ravi Kumar v. State of Punjab3 (2005) Hon‘ble Justice Arijit Pasayat said ―It is
not the requirement of law that the minutest details be recorded in the FIR lodged immediately
after the occurrence.

2.3. Essential ingredients of FIR

Section 1544 deals registration of FIR in case of cognizable offence. ‗Principle of Updating
Construction‘ is applied to interpret Section 154 (3). In case of sexual offences against women,

1
Supreme Court, Division Bench, Hon‘ble JJ. Arijit Pasayat & S.H. Kapadia. This case was decided by Supreme
Court on March 4, 2005. Available at: https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/29421.pdf (Visited on May 10, 2022).
2
Doraiswamy Raju & Arijit Pasayat decided this case on December 15, 2003. Available at:
https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/25596.pdf (Visited on May 10, 2022).
3
Supreme Court, Division Bench, Hon‘ble JJ. Arijit Pasayat & S.H. Kapadia. This case was decided by Supreme
Court on March 4, 2005. Available at: https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/29421.pdf (Visited on May 10, 2022).
4
Section 154. Information in cognizable cases.- (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable
offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his
direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to
writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to
be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf:
Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under section 326A, section 326B,
section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, section 376A, section 376AB,
section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB, section 376E or section 509 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded,
by a woman police officer or any woman officer:

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 3

the FIR is registered by women police officer. This is in consonance with Article 15 (3) of the
Constitution of India.

There are following essential ingredients of FIR under section 154 -

(1) Information- There should be information. Mere information is sufficient. There is no need
of allegation. It can be provided by any person including victims, accused and third person.
Evidentiary value of FIR is changed according to informant, contents and timing of registration
of FIR.
(2) Cognizable Offence-That information must be related to commission of cognizable offences.
Section 2 (c) defines cognizable offence. Cognizable offences are those offences which require
immediate action. In such offences police can arrest and investigate without warrant of a court.
(3) Recording Authority: Officer in charge of a police station and woman police officer or any
woman officer -It must be made to the officer in charge of a police station. If the informant is the
victim (woman) of acid attack, outrage of modesty, rape or word intended to insult the modesty
of a woman then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman
officer. If the victim is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such
information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report
such offence or at a convenient place of such person‘s choice, in the presence of an interpreter
or a special educator, as the case may be. The recording of such information shall be video
graphed.
(4) Oral or written – Information of offence may be either oral or written. If it is given orally to
an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction,
and be read over to the informant. In our country, near about 25% population is illiterate. So it
has been provided that information may be given orally or in writing.
(5) Signature of informant- Every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to
writing (oral information) as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it (informant). By

Provided further that -

(a) in the event that the person against whom an offence under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section
354C, section 354D, section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section
376DA, section 376DB, section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been
committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall
be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place
of such person‘s choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be;
(b) the recording of such information shall be video graphed;
(c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-
section (5A) of section 164 as soon as possible.
(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the
informant.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information
referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the
Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable
offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer
subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in
charge of the police station in relation to that offence.

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 4

signature, he approves that recorded information is true and there is no manipulation by

recording authority. Here, sign includes thumb impression.
(6) Entering of substance in book – According to Section 154, the substance the information
shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may
prescribe in this behalf. ‗General Diary‘ has been prescribed for this purpose. Substance of the
information is written in ‗General Diary‘.

(2.4.) Number of copies

Every State has made certain regulations to deal number of copies and mentioning substance of
FIR in books. Here, I am discussing Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations5. According to Para 97 of
the regulation, the FIR must be prepared in ‘triplicate’ (Three copies). The informant must sign
all three copies or if he cannot write he must put his thumb impression. Officer in charge of
police station must sign and seal all three copies also. These copies are distributed according to
sections 156, 157, 158 of the Cr.P.C. and Para 97 Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations in following
manner -
(1) Original (First) Copy to Magistrate – According to section 157, officer in charge of police
station empowered under section 156 shall forthwith send a report of FIR to a Magistrate who is
empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report. According to section 158,
report under section 157 shall be submitted through such superior officer of police as the State
Government appoints. Original copy is sent through Superintendent of Police to Magistrate
having jurisdiction. There are many benefits. Section 159 says that magistrate may direct for
investigation if the authority had decided not to conduct investigation. The section further
provides that the Magistrate may conduct inquiry in case of need.
(2) Second Copy to ‘Informant’ - Second copy shall be given to the informant free of cost.
(3) Third Copy for Police Station - Third copy remains in book. According to Para 99 of the
Uttar Pradesh Regulation, as soon as information has been written in First Information Book, the
substance of FIR must be written in ‗General Diary‘.
Three Copies of FIR
First (Original) Copy to Magistrate
Second Copy to ‗Informant‘
Third Copy for Police Station

5
Uttar Pradesh Regulations is available at:https://uppolice.gov.in/writereaddata/uploaded-
content/Web_Page/14_8_2014_10_43_8_police_regulation_2.pdf (Visited on January 14, 2019).

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 5

(2.5.) Alternative Remedies

If FIR is not registered under Section 154, CrPC, there are many alternative remedies which was
discussed by Hon‘ble Justice Markandey Katju in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.6 decided on
Dec.07, 2007. Hon‘ble Justice Markandey Katju said, ―If a person has a grievance that his FIR
has not been registered by the police station under section 154(1) his first remedy is to approach
the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in
Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to
in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C. Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200
Cr.P.C. …..It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is
equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily
interfere. He can approach High Court either through section 482 or with writ petition under
article 226 of the Constitution of India.‖
SmartArt
Alternate remedy in case of non-registration of FIR under sec. 154(1)

Writ u/
Art. 226 32 is also
(Writ to possible)
Sec. 482
(Inherent High
Sec. 200 Court.
(Judicial Power of
Sec. H.C.)
156(3) Magistrat
Sec. 36 e)
(Police (Judicial
Sec. Magistrat
154(3) Officers
Sec. superior e)
154(1) (Superint
endent of to O.P.S
(Officer e.g. DIG,
in charge Police)
IG,
of a DGP)
police
station)

6
This Case was decided by Division Bench of Supreme Court consisted of Justice A.K. Mathur & Justice
Markandey Katju. Justice Markandey Katju wrote the judgment.

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 6

(2.6) Doctrines Related to FIR

There are three doctrines related to FIR. These are (1) ‗Doctrine of updating construction‘, (2)
„Doctrine of Implied Power‘, and ‗Doctrine of Sameness‘.

(2.6.1.) ‘Doctrine of updating construction’

‗Doctrine of updating construction‘ was discussed thoroughly in State of Maharashtra & Anr v.
Dr. Praful B. Desai & Anr. 7This doctrine must be applied to interpret Section 154 (3). After
applying this, information may be sent to Superintendent of Police through other speedier modes
including email and electronic message. There should not be mandatory to send substance of
information through post.

(2.6.2.) ‘Doctrine of Implied Power’

„Doctrine of Implied Power‘ was applied in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.8 decided by Supreme
Court on Dec.07, 2007. It was observed that Magistrates have power under Section 156 (3) to
give directions for lodging FIR. This power comes to Court on the basis of ‗Doctrine of Implied
Power‘.

(2.6.3.) ‘Doctrine of Sameness’

‗Doctrine of sameness‘ means two or more FIRs cannot be registered on the same or similar
facts. Second FIR cannot be allowed as a means to improve first FIR.

In Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and others9, this Court, after surveying the earlier decisions,
expressed the view that the court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both
the FIRs and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the
same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or
more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is in the affirmative, the second FIR is liable to
be quashed. However, in case the contrary is proved, where the version in the second FIR is
different and they are in respect of two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible.
In case the accused in the first FIR comes forward with a different version or counterclaim in
respect of the same incident, investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted.

In Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another10 the Apex Court held as follows:

―14. On the plain construction of the language and scheme of Sections 154, 156 and 190 of the
Code, it cannot be construed or suggested that there can be more than one FIR about an
occurrence. However, the opening words of Section 154 suggest that every information relating
to commission of a cognizable offence shall be reduced into writing by the officer-in-charge of a
police station. This implies that there has to be the first information report about an incident

7
(2003) 4 SCC 601. Available at: https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/19114.pdf (Visited on May 12, 2022).
8
This Case was decided by Division Bench of Supreme Court consisted of Justice A.K. Mathur & Justice
Markandey Katju. Justice Markandey Katju wrote the judgment.
9
(2010) 12 SCC 254.
10
December 13, 2012. (2013) 6 SCC 384.

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 7

which constitutes a cognizable offence. The purpose of registering an FIR is to set the machinery
of criminal investigation into motion, which culminates with filing of the police report in terms
of Section 173(2) of the Code. It will, thus, be appropriate to follow the settled principle that
there cannot be two FIRs registered for the same offence. However, where the incident is
separate; offences are similar or different, or even where the subsequent crime is of such
magnitude that it does not fall within the ambit and scope of the FIR recorded first, then a
second FIR could be registered. The most important aspect is to examine the inbuilt safeguards
provided by the legislature in the very language of Section 154 of the Code. These safeguards
can be safely deduced from the principle akin to double jeopardy, rule of fair investigation and
further to prevent abuse of power by the investigating authority of the police. Therefore, second
FIR for the same incident cannot be registered‖.

In Surender Kaushik and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.11 Hon‘ble Supreme Court
observed at para 24, ―. … it is quite luminous that the lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible in
respect of one and the same incident. The ‗concept of sameness‘ has been given a restricted
meaning. It does not encompass filing of a counter-FIR relating to the same or connected
cognizable offence. What is prohibited is any further complaint by the same complainant and
others against the same accused subsequent to the registration of the case under the Code, for an
investigation in that regard would have already commenced and allowing registration of further
complaint would amount to an improvement of the facts mentioned in the original complaint.

Karnataka High Court decided B. V. Byre Gowda v. Nisar Ahmed12 on September 20, 2021.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna wrote this judgment. He observed, ―…registration of second FIR on the
same incident would be hit by the ―doctrine of sameness‖ and will have to be annihilated as it
would amount to improving the facts and the case in the subsequent complaint on the same
incident‖.

(2.7.) FIR and Further Process

FIR and further process of FIR can be understood with the help of following SmartArt -

11
Date of Judgment: February 14, 2013. (2013) 5 SCC 148. Available at:
https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/40055.pdf (Visited on May 13, 2022).
12
Available at: https://judgments.ecourts.gov.in/pdfsearch/?p=pdf_search/index&state_code=29~3&dist_code=1
(Visited on May 13, 2022)

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 8

Section 154 (FIR

is registered)

Section 157 r/w Section 158 (Sending of one copy of FIR forthwith to
Judicial Magistrate in a manner as mentioned in section 158. It helps
Magistrate to be vigilant about investigation)

Section 156 (Investigation – Sometimes investigation may start without

sending copy of FIR to Judicial Magistrate if practically is not possible to
send immediately).

Section 159 Magistrate has option either to order

investigation or make an inquiry

Investigation Preliminary
s. 2(h) Inquiry s. 2(g))

(2.8.) Kinds of FIR

FIR can be divided on the basis of informants and authorities (on whose information or direction
FIR is registered) and jurisdiction.
These classifications based on informant are the following-

Kinds of FIR
(Informant)

Victim Accused Third Person Police authority

(Suo motu) Court (S. 156
[Section 154] [Section 154] [Section 154] (3), r/w s. 482)
[Section 157 r/w
Section 36

In the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2013)13 Supreme Court said that the Code
contemplates two kinds of FIRs namely;

 FIR under section 154 (1) and

 FIR under section 157(1).
13
2013(13) SCALE 559.

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 9

The duly signed FIR under Section 154(1) is by the informant to the concerned officer at the
police station. The second kind of FIR could be which is registered by the police itself on any
information received or other than by way of an informant under Section 157(1) and even this
information has to be duly recorded and the copy should be sent to the Magistrate forthwith.

All the superior officers of ‗Officer in charge of police station‘ have powers to either lodge or
give directions for lodging FIR. These superior officers get this powers under Section 36 read
with Section 154 and 157.

Magistrate has power under Section 156 (3) to give direction for investigation. Starting of
investigation is not possible without registration of FIR. So ‗Doctrine of Implied Power‘ is
applied. It is deemed that Magistrate has also power to give directions for registration of FIR as
well as power to give directions for investigation. High Court has inherent power under Section
482. Under this Section, High Court may also pass directions for lodging of FIR.

Kinds of FIR
(Jurisdiction)

FIR Zero FIR

[Jurisdictional FIR] [Free Jurisdictional FIR]

Section 154 (1)] Section 154 (1)]

Jurisdiction – Every police station has own territorial jurisdiction. If cognizable offence is
committed within territorial jurisdiction then FIR is registered and it contains date, time and
place of occurrence, serial number etc.
Zero FIR - Zero FIR can be registered by any Officer in charge of Police Station even he has no
jurisdiction to investigate the offence. In such FIR serial number is put Zero and such FIR is
forwarded to competent investigating police station.
In case of Aasaram Bapu Rape case, rape was committed in Jodhpur, Rajsthan. FIR was lodged
in Kamla Market Police Station, New Delhi. This was the ‗Zero FIR‘. It was transferred to
Jodhpur for investigation.

Manoj Sharma Manu v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.14

In this case alleged offence against girl was occurred sector 11, Noida and not within the
jurisdiction of PS New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi. By using section 156(3) Metropolitan
Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction over the area of PS New Ashok Nagar directed SHO PS

14
This Case was decided by Delhi H.C. on April 13, 2017.

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 10

New Ashok Nagar to register zero FIR and thereafter to transfer the same to the concerned Police
Station having jurisdiction in the matter as per procedure.
Delhi High Court quashed the order of Metropolitan Magistrate and held that section 154(1) is
different from section 156(3). Section 154 (1) Cr.P.C. unlike section 156(3) does not prescribe
for a restriction on registration of FIR in respect of an offence committed within the territorial
jurisdiction of the police station. Thus even if the offence may have been committed beyond the
territorial jurisdiction of a police station, the officer in-charge of the police station would still
register the FIR and investigate thereon, however, a Magistrate under section 156(3) cannot
direct to an officer in-charge of a police station beyond its territorial jurisdiction.
Judicial Magistrate cannot pass an order for Zero FIR by using section 156(3). Order of Judicial
Magistrate was quashed. Officer in-charge of the police station shall register the FIR in case of
need.

(2.9.) Territorial Jurisdiction of Police Station and FIR

State of Andhra Pradesh v. Punati Ramulu and Others (SC 19 Feb., 1993)
Section 154 does not say anything regarding territorial jurisdiction. The police constable at the
police station refused to record FIR on the ground that the said police station had no territorial
jurisdiction over the place of crime.
In this case Supreme Court observed, ―It was certainly a dereliction of duty on the part of the
constable because any lack of territorial jurisdiction could not have prevented the constable from
recording information about the cognizable offence and forwarding the same to the police station
having jurisdiction over the area in which the crime was said to have been committed‖.

Telephonic Messages
Cryptic telephonic message cannot constitute FIR. In Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab15
Supreme Court discussed this point.
Facts- The person, giving the information on telephone, did not disclose-his identity; nor did he
give any further particulars. When the police officer receiving the telephone message made
further enquiries from him he disconnected the telephone. This report was entered in the daily
diary at 5.35 p.m.
Held - The telephonic message recorded in the daily diary of the police station was a cryptic
and anonymous oral message which did not in terms clearly specify a cognizable offence and
could not, therefore, be treated as first information report. The mere fact that this information
was the first in point of time could not by itself clothe it with the character of first information
report. The question whether or not a particular document constitutes a first information report,
has to be determined on the relevant facts and circumstances of each case.

15
This case was decided by Supreme Court on May 7, 1970)

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 11

(2.10.) Advantage of immediate registration of FIR

In case of Lalita Kumari Case (2013) Supreme Court discussed advantages of immediate
registration of FIR. The registration of FIR either on the basis of the information furnished by
the informant under Section 154(1) of the Code or otherwise under Section 157(1) of the Code is
obligatory. The obligation to register FIR has inherent advantages:

1. It is the first step to access to justice for a victim.

2. It upholds the ‗Rule of Law‘ inasmuch as the ordinary person brings forth the
commission of a cognizable crime in the knowledge of the State.
3. It also facilitates swift investigation and sometimes even prevention of the crime. In both
cases, it only effectuates the regime of law.
4. It leads to less manipulation in criminal cases and lessens incidents of ante-dates FIR or
deliberately delayed FIR.

(2.11.) Delay in lodging FIR

Delay in lodging FIR shall not affect credibility of FIR if there are justified reasons. In case of
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gyan Chand (May 1, 2001SC) Supreme Court observed, ―Delay
in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and
discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report. Delay
has the effect of putting the Court in its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for
the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily
explain the delay and there is possibility of embellishment in prosecution version on account of
such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the
satisfaction of the court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding
the entire prosecution case.‖

(2.12.) Uploading of FIR on police website or official website of Government concerned

In Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India and Others (Sep.7, 2016SC) Supreme Court
discussed this point thoroughly –
Writ petition for mandamus was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by the
petitioner, Youth Bar Association of India. Prayer was that the direction should be issued for the
Union of India and the States to upload each and every First Information Report registered in all
the police stations within the territory of India in the official website of the police of all States, as
early as possible, preferably within 24 hours from the time of registration. Guidelines were
issued by division bench comprises of Hon‘ble Justice Dipak Misra and Hon‘ble Justice C.
Nagappan. These guidelines are following -

(1) FIR on website within 24, 48, 72hours -The copies of the FIRs, unless the offence is
sensitive in nature, like sexual offences, offences pertaining to insurgency, terrorism and of that

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 12

category, offences under POCSO Act and such other offences, should be uploaded on the police
website, and if there is no such website, on the official website of the State Government, within
twenty-four hours of the registration of the First Information Report so that the accused or any
person connected with the same can download the FIR and file appropriate application before the
Court as per law for redressal of his grievances. It may be clarified here that in case there are
connectivity problems due to geographical location or there is some other unavoidable difficulty,
the time can be extended up to forty-eight hours. The said 48 hours can be extended maximum
up to 72 hours and it is only relatable to connectivity problems due to geographical location.
Uploading of FIR on
‘Website’

No need to
Mandatory uploading upload

If offence is sensitive
24 Hours 48 Hours 72 Hours

DSP will decide

nature of offence

(2) DSP shall decide sensitive nature - The decision not to upload the copy of the FIR on the
website shall not be taken by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or
any person holding equivalent post. In case, the States where District Magistrate has a role, he
may also assume the said authority. A decision taken by the concerned police officer or the
District Magistrate shall be duly communicated to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate.
(3) Not ground for anticipatory bail- If an FIR is not uploaded, needless to say, it shall not
ensure per se a ground to obtain the benefit under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
(4) Supply of copy of FIR to accused - An accused is entitled to get a copy of the First
Information Report at an earlier stage than as prescribed under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.13.) Mandatory Registration of FIR and Preliminary Inquiry

In Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. Hon‘ble Supreme Court thoroughly discussed mandatory
registration of FIR and preliminary inquiry16 before registration of FIR. Three orders and two

16
Question 1(LL.B. DU 2017) – What is first information report? Whether a police officer who receives any
information under section 154 or comes to know otherwise under section 157 is under an obligation to register an
FIR or does he or she have discretion to conduct preliminary inquiry? Explain in the light of the case Lalita Kumari
v. Govt. of U.P. (2013).

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 13

judgments were passed in the series of Lalita Kumari case. The following Table contains list of
orders and judgments –

Table [Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.] (2008, 2008, 2012, 2013, 2014)

1 Lalita Kumari v. Order July 14, 2008 JJ. B.N. Agrawal & G.S. Singhvi
Govt. of U.P. (FIR of practical issued notice to the Central, States
person is registered and Union Territories‘
in ‗Supersonic jet Governments to show reasons why
speed‘.( Disparity in directions should not be passed.
registration of FIR)
2 Lalita Kumari v. Order 2008 JJ. B.N. Agrawal & G.S. Singhvi.
Govt. of U.P.
3 Lalita Kumari v. Judgment February 27, 2012 JJ. Dalveer Bhandari, T.S. Thakur,
Govt. of U.P. Justice Dalveer Dipak Misra referred the matter for
Bhandari the constitutional Bench.
4 Lalita Kumari v. Judgment Nov. 12, 2013 Constitutional bench comprising of
Govt. of U.P. Justice P. Justices P. Sathasivam, B.S.
Sathasivam Chauhan, Ranjana Prakash Desai,
Ranjan Gogoi, S.A. Bobde decided
case and issued guidelines for
recording registration. Eight
guidelines were laid down.
According to guideline no. 7 the
preliminary inquiry must be
concluded within 7 days.17
5 Lalita Kumari v. Order 2014 Supreme Court modified guideline
Govt. of U.P. no.7 and 15 days substituted 7
days.

(2.13.1.) Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (Nov. 12, 2013)

Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court comprising of (i) CJI & author of judgment (Now
Governor of Kerala Since 2014) P Sathasivam, (ii) B.S. Chauhan, (iii) Ranjana Prakash Desai,
(iv) Ranjan Gogoi (Incumbent CJI at present) (v) S.A. Bobde decided Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of
U.P. on November 12, 2013.

Issue – “Whether a police officer is bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon
receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under section 154 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or the police officer has the power to conduct a

17
DJS (Pre.)2019.

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 14

“preliminary inquiry” in order to test the veracity of such information before registering the
same.”
Reply of This issue – Rule is that registration of FIR is mandatory without preliminary inquiry.
But in exceptional circumstances, preliminary inquiry may be conducted before registration of
FIR. Some examples were given in which preliminary inquiry may be conducted.

Facts – On 5.5.2008, Lalita Kumari, aged about six years, went out of her house at 9 p.m. She
did not return for half an hour and her father, Bhola Kamat, was not successful in tracing her.
There was suspicion of kidnapping of Lalita Kumari. Officer in charge of police station, Loni,
Ghaziabad, U.P. was not ready to register FIR on May 11, 2008. Superintendence of Police
directed under section 154(3) and FIR was registered. But the Police authority was not interested
to take stern action. Even they were not interested in investigation.
Writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by Lalita Kumari (minor)
through her father, viz., Shri Bhola Kamat for the issuance of a writ of ‗Habeas Corpus‘ or
direction(s) of like nature against the respondents herein for the protection of his minor daughter
who had been kidnapped. In Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2008) Hon‘ble Justice B.N.Agrawal
observed that FIR of the poor person is not registered while FIR of practical person (strong and
rich person) is registered and investigation started in supersonic jet speed. In this way, he
observed disparity in registration of FIR.
Important points of Judgment - In this case, the Constitutional Bench decided the following
important points -
(1) Object of the Code- According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Code,
protection of the interests of the poor is clearly one of the main objects of the Cr.P.C. Making
registration of information relating to commission of a cognizable offence mandatory would help
the society, especially, the poor in rural and remote areas of the country.
(2) Object of FIR - The FIR is a pertinent document in the criminal law procedure of our
country and its main object from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in
motion and from the point of view of the investigating authorities is to obtain information about
the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps to trace and to bring to book
the guilty.
(3) Kinds of FIR - Cr.P.C. contemplates two kinds of FIRs. The duly signed FIR under section
154 (1) is by the informant to the concerned officer at the police station. The second kind of FIR
could be which is registered by the police itself on any information received or other than by way
of an informant under section 157(1) and even this information has to be duly recorded and the
copy should be sent to the Magistrate forthwith. The registration of FIR either on the basis of the
information furnished by the informant under section 154 (1) of the Code or otherwise
under section 157(1) of the Code is obligatory.
(4) Registration of FIR is mandatory and guidelines for registration – Under section 154, word
‗shall‘ has been used. ‗Information‘ word is not qualified like ‗reasonable information‘ or
‗credible information‘. Section 154 is unlike to Section 41. Section 41 uses ‗reasonable

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 15

complaint‘ ‗credible information‘, and ‗reasonable suspicion‘. It means arrest is more serious
than registration of FIR.
Rule is that registration of FIR is mandatory. Supreme Court illustrated five circumstances in
which before registration of FIR, preliminary inquiry may be conducted. These are following
cases –
(MC MCD)-
(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example,
over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for
delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant
preliminary inquiry.
(5) Advantages of immediate FIR - The registration of FIR either on the basis of the
information furnished by the informant under Section 154(1) of the Code or otherwise under
Section 157(1) of the Code is obligatory. The obligation to register FIR has inherent advantages:

 It is the first step to access to justice for a victim.

 It upholds the Rule of Law inasmuch as the ordinary person brings forth the commission
of a cognizable crime in the knowledge of the State.
 It also facilitates swift investigation and sometimes even prevention of the crime. In both
cases, it only effectuates the regime of law.
 It leads to less manipulation in criminal cases and lessens incidents of ante-dates FIR or
deliberately delayed FIR.

(6) Relation between FIR and Arrest – Mandatory registration of FIR does not mean
mandatory arrest. In preventive cases person is arrested even without registered FIR. Section 151
of the Code empowers the police authority to arrest even without FIR. Thus, the arrest of a
person and registration of FIR are not directly and/or irreversibly linked and they are entirely
different concepts operating under entirely different parameters.18
Section 154 uses ‗information‘. Section 154 is unlike to Section 41. Section 41 uses ‗reasonable
complaint‘ ‗credible information‘, and ‗reasonable suspicion‘. It means arrest is more serious
than registration of FIR. So it can be concluded that registration of FIR is mandatory. But arrest
is not mandatory. Even in two circumstances mentioned under Section 157, investigation is not
necessary.

18
Section 41 says that if offence is less than 7 years, police cannot arrest unless some other conditions enumerated
in Section 41 being fulfilled. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), Supreme Court said that arrest must not be
like routine manner. It is duty of the Magistrate to release the accused if person had not been arrested as per
provision of Section 41.

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 16

(7) Foreclosure of FIR without investigation - If a police officer misuses his power of arrest,
he can be tried and punished under section 166.
Even after registration of FIR police may deny investigation in certain circumstances mentioned
in section 157 of the Code. These circumstances are-
(i) when information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by
name and the case is not of a serious nature, or
(ii) there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation. Therefore, the requirements of
launching an investigation under section 157 of the Code are higher than the requirement
under section 154 of the Code. Therefore, the police are not liable to launch an investigation in
every FIR which is mandatorily registered on receiving information relating to commission of a
cognizable offence.
(8) Relation between FIR (154 Cr.P.C.) & Article 21 of Constitution – In Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India (January 25,1978) Supreme Court held that the law which deprives a person of
his personal liberty must be reasonable both from the stand point of substantive as well as
procedural aspect . A delicate balance has to be maintained between the interest of the society
and protecting the liberty of an individual. There are already sufficient safeguards provided in
Cr.P.C. which duly protect the liberty of an individual in case of registration of false FIR. At the
same time, section 154 was drafted keeping in mind the interest of the victim and the society.
Therefore, we are of the cogent view that mandatory registration of FIRs under section 154 of
the Code will not be in contravention of article 21 of the Constitution as purported by various
counsel.
Guidelines for registration of FIR

In the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.(2013)19 Supreme Court laid down following
proposition for recording of FIR –
(i) FIR discloses cognizable offence (Mandatory FIR) - Registration of FIR is mandatory under
Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no
preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
(ii) FIR does not disclose cognizable offence ( Preliminary Inquiry) - If the information
received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a
preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed
or not.
(iii) If ‘Preliminary Inquiry’ discloses ‘Cognizable Offence’ - If the inquiry discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered.
If ‘Preliminary Inquiry’ does not discloses ‘Cognizable Offence’ - In cases where preliminary
inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the
first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing
the complaint and not proceeding further.

19
2013(13) SCALE 559.

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 17

(iv) Non-register of FIR is crime - The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering
offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do
not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.

Preliminary Inquiry
Preliminary inquiry is possible in two circumstances –

 If FIR discloses cognizable offence and that offence is related to MCMCD, and
 If FIR does not disclose cognizable offence ‗Preliminary Inquiry‘ can be conducted to
ensure nature of offence. If in ‗Preliminary Inquiry‘ it is concluded that offence is
cognizable, then FIR shall be registered.

(v) Purpose of ‘Preliminary Inquiry’- The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the
veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information
reveals any cognizable offence.
(vi) ‘Preliminary Inquiry’ in MC, MCD (Matrimonial Commercial, Medical Corruption, Delay
for three month) - As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted
will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The categories of cases in which
preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example,
over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for
delay.1
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive20 of all conditions which may warrant
preliminary inquiry.
(vii) ‘Preliminary Inquiry’ should be completed within 15 days - While ensuring and protecting
the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound
and in any case it should not exceed 15 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be
reflected in the General Diary entry.
(viii) Registration or preliminary inquiry must be mentioned in ‘General Diary’- Since the
General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police
station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in
registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in
20
Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. was decided by Division Bench of Supreme
Court on March 20, 2018. In this Case, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
was involved. Supreme Court held that FIR should not be registered under this Act without conducting preliminary
inquiry. It was decided on the basis that in Lalita Kumari Case only illustrations were mentioned in which
preliminary inquiry may be conducted. These illustrations are not exhaustive. After this SC and ST Act, 1989 was
amended by Parliament and it was provided that FIR will be registered under this Act without conducting
preliminary inquiry.

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 18

the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as
mentioned above.
Timing prescribed in Lalita Kumari Case
One week In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the
entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not
later than one week.
15 Days ‗Preliminary Inquiry‘ should be completed within 15 days. (Lalita Kumari casse
2013(7 days) was modified by Lalita Kumari case, 2014(15 days).
Three month If information is given after three months for lodging an FIR, in this case
preliminary inquiry may be conducted.

FIR
[Crux of Lalita
Case]

Cognizable offence Information is not disclosing

cognizable offence but indicates
the necessity for inquiry

Rule Exception [MCMCD]

Inquiry must be completed in 7
(Registration of FIR (Preliminary Inquiry may be days (15days as modified in 2014)
is Mandatory) conducted in five cases). These
are not exhaustive list]

Conclusion

Cognizable Non-cognizable

Non-cognizable (Copy of
Registration of FIR such closure and its reason
is Mandatory must be supplied within
one week i.e.7days)

(2.14.) Alternative Remedies and Demand for CBI: Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.

Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.21 was decided by the Division Bench of the Supreme Court on
December 07, 2007.

21
This Case was decided by Division Bench of Supreme Court consisted of Justice A.K. Mathur & Justice
Markandey Katju. Justice Markandey Katju wrote the judgment.

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 19

Facts of case
The son (Major S. Ravishankar) of the appellant (Sakiri Vasu) was a Major in the Indian Army.
His dead body was found on 23.8.2003 at Mathura Railway Station. The G.R.P, Mathura
investigated the matter and concluded that the death was due to an accident or suicide. The Army
officials at Mathura also held two Courts of Inquiry and both times submitted the report that the
deceased Major S. Ravishankar had committed suicide at the railway track at Mathura junction.
Father of deceased claimed that it was murder and reason of murder was that he knew about
corruption in army. He filed writ petition in Allahabad High Court under Article 226 of the
constitution. He was demanding investigation by CBI. Writ petition was dismissed by All.H.C.
Through ‗Special Leave Petition‘ under Article 136, matter reached to the Supreme Court.

View regarding death

GRP Army Father

(Either accident or suicide) Suicide Murder

Crux of Decision
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that person can demand for proper investigation
but cannot demand investigation by special agency. Supreme Court also suggested that person
must first of all use alternative remedies available in criminal law and if he is not satisfied then
he must approach to High Court.
Issues and Answer

There are following issues are involved in this case –

Issue (1) Is a person entitled to reach High Court without exhausting alternative remedies
available in Cr.P.C.?
Answer. He is entitled but such things must not be promoted. If there is an alternative remedy
the High Court should not ordinarily interfere. In this case alternative remedies in case of non-
registration of FIR have been discussed.
Issue (2) - Can a victim demand investigation by „Special Agency‟?
Answer – A victim can demand for proper and speedy investigation. But he cannot demand
investigation by special agency including CBI.
Issue (3) - Is Magistrate empowered under section 156(3) to pass an order for investigation by
special agency including CBI?
Answer – Magistrate is not empowered to pass an order for investigation by CBI. Reason of this
is word ‘abovementioned’ under section 156(3). The word ‗abovementioned‘ refer to Section
156 (1), which contemplates investigation by the officer in charge of the Police Station rather
than any other investigating authority.
Issue (4) - Is Magistrate empowers under section 156(3) to pass an order for registration of FIR?

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 20

Answer - Magistrate is empowered under section 156(3) to pass an order for registration of FIR.
Reason of this is application of ‗Doctrine of Implied Power‘.
Issue (5) - Is Magistrate empowered under section 156(3) to pass an order for re-opening of
investigation after submission of ‗Final Report‘?
Answer – Yes. Magistrate is empowered under section 156(3) to pass an order for re-opening of
investigation even after submission of ‗Final Report
Ratio of Judgment
There are following ratio of this judgment -
(1) Alternative remedies - In this case Hon’ble Justice Markandey Katju said, ―If a person has
a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station under section 154(1) his
first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other
police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of
Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a
Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ
petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a
criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. …..It is true that alternative remedy is not an
absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy
the High Court should not ordinarily interfere. He can approach High Court either through
section 482 or with writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India.‖

Flow Chart
Alternate remedy in case of non-registration of FIR under sec. 154(1)
Art. 226 (Writ Jurisdiction of High Court. Writ u/ 32 is also possible)

Sec. 482 (Inherent Power of H.C.)

Sec. 200 (Judicial Magistrate)

Sec. 156(3) (Judicial Magistrate)

Sec. 36 (Police Officers superior to O.P.S e.g. DIG, IG, DGP)

Sec. 154(3) (Superintendent of Police)

Sec. 154(1) (Officer in charge of a police station)

(2) No power of Magistrate to pass order for investigation by CBI - No doubt the Magistrate
cannot order under section 156 (3) investigation by the CBI. But Supreme Court or the High
Court has power under Article 136 or Article 226 to order investigation by the CBI. Reason of
this is word ‘abovementioned’ under section 156(3). The words ‗abovementioned‘ refer to

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 21

Section 156 (1), which contemplates investigation by the officer in charge of the Police Station
rather than any other investigating authority.
(3) Demand for investigation by Particular agency- A victim can demand for proper and
speedy investigation. But he cannot demand investigation by special agency including CBI. The
aggrieved person has no right to claim the offence be investigated by any particular agency of his
choice.

(4) Doctrine of implied power - It is well-settled that when a power is given to an authority to
do something it includes such incidental or implied powers which would ensure the proper doing
of that thing. In other words, when any power is expressly granted by the statute, there is
impliedly included in the grant, even without special mention, every power and every control the
denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective.
Example- The power conferred on the Magistrate under Section 125Cr.P.C. to grant
maintenance to the wife implies the power to grant interim maintenance during the pendency of
the proceeding, otherwise she may starve during this period.
(5) Power to pass an order for registration and proper investigation – Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a
proper investigation, and it includes

 the power to order registration of an F.I.R. and

 of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation
has not been done, or is not being done by the police.

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded is very wide and it will include all such incidental
powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation.
(6) Power of Magistrate to check the investigation - Section 156(3) provides for a check by
the Magistrate on the police performing its duties under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. In cases where the
Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all, or has not
done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly, and
can monitor the same.
(7) Relation between section 156(3) and section 173(8) - The power in the Magistrate to order
further investigation under Section 156(3) is an independent power, and does not affect the
power of the investigating officer to further investigate the case even after submission of his
report under Section 173(2). Hence the Magistrate can order re-opening of the investigation
even after the police submits the final report.
Conclusion
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Doctrine of Updating Construction
According to this doctrine law must be interpreted in such a way which should be according to
moving society. Hon‘ble Justice Bhagwati in case of National Textile Workers‟ Union v. P.R.

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 22

Ramakrishnan22 said ―Law cannot stand still; it must change with the changing social concepts
and values. Law must constantly be on the move adapting itself to the fast-changing society and
not lag behind.‖
Section 154(3) requires sending of substance to SP in writing and by post. When Cr.P.C. was
enacted, speed post was speediest and authentic mode to communicate to S.P. But after scientific
development there are several other modes which provide quick mode for communication. For
example email, WhatsApp and mobile call. So to interpret …in writing and by post, ‗Doctrine of
Updating Construction‘ must be applied so that these modes can be covered.

(2.15.) EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF FIR

There are the following leading cases on this point -

(1) Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (SC, 4 May, 1965)

Facts –Aghnoo Nagesia was tried for murder for his aunty and her relatives. He reached to the
police station and make registration of FIR. FIR was confessional FIR. He pointed places from
where dead bodies and arms were recovered. Under section 25 confessions to police cannot be
proved against accused. But section 27 is exception of sections 24, 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence
Act.
Issue – Whether the whole confessional statement in the FIR was banned by section 25 of the
Evidence Act or only those portions of it were barred which related to the actual commission of
the crime.
Answer – Confession cannot be divided into parts. Whole confession is irrelevant except those
parts which come under section 27 and identifying the maker of FIR.

Ratio of Judgment - In the case of Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar Supreme Court observed,
―Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the recording of the first
information. (1) The information report as such is not substantive evidence. (2) It may be used
to corroborate the informant under Section 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict him
under Section 145 of the Act, if the informant is called as a witness. (3) If the first information is
given by the accused himself, the fact of his giving the information is admissible against him as
evidence of his conduct under Section 8 (MP PSC) of the Evidence Act. (4) If the information is
a non-confessional statement, it is admissible against the accused as an admission under Section
21 of the Evidence Act and is relevant. (5) A confessional first information report to a police
officer cannot be used against the accused in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.‖
(2) Ravi Kumar vs. State of Punjab (SC, March 4, 2005) Division Bench
Hon‘ble Justice Arijit Pasayat said ―It has been held time and again that the FIR is not a
substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to corroborate the statement of the maker
22
(1983) 1 SCC 228

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 23

under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or to contradict him under Section 145 of
that Act. It can neither be used as evidence against the maker at the trial if he himself becomes
an accused nor to corroborate or contradict other witnesses.‖
(3) Pancham Yadav v. State of U.P. (All. H.C. 1993)
Information of victim was recorded as FIR. Later on he died. This FIR was also treated as
a dying declaration under section 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This is the only
circumstances when FIR becomes substantive piece of evidence.
(4) Shayam Nandan Singh and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar (Pat.H.C. 9 May, 1991)
FIR was also treated as res gestae and it was also relevant under section 6 of IEA.

Evidentiary Value of FIR

Third Person (If the

Victim informant is called as Accused
a witness at the time
of trial.

Sec.32 (1) (IEA) Sec.6(IEA) Sec.8(IEA) Sec.145(IEA) Sec.157(IEA)

(Y) (Y) (Y) (Y) (Y)
(Substantive evidence)

Sec.6(IEA) Sec.145(IEA) Sec.157(IEA)

(Y) (Y) (Y)

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 24

Sec. 31523(Cr.P.C) Sec.8 (IEA) Sec.21 (IEA) Sec.25 (IEA)

(Y) (Y)

Sec.145(IEA) Sec.157(IEA) Sec.145(IEA) Sec.157(IEA)

(Y) (No) (Y)

*Failure in lodging of FIR by public servants in certain cases is punishable under section 166A
(c) of IPC. For this failure minimum punishment is 6 months rigorous imprisonment and
maximum punishment is 2 yrs. Section 166A was inserted in 2009.

Section 155

STATE OF ORISSA v. SHARAT CHANDRA SAHU (1996)

This case is based on section 155(4). This section declares that in combination of cognizable and
non-cognizable cases, whole cases must be treated as cognizable offence. In this case section
498A (Cognizable offence) and section 494 (Non-cognizable offence) were involved. Supreme
Court held that High Court was wrong and all cases must be treated as cognizable offences.
Fact of the case
There was dispute between Husband & wife. She made complaint against her husband for
causing offences under sections 498A and 494 IPC to Women‘s Commission & Women‘s
Commission made complaint to Police. Wife did not directly approach to police station. The
Police investigated those matters and submitted Charge-sheet to SDJM (Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate).
Offence

Section 494, IPC Section 498A, IPC

Non-cognizable Cognizable offence
Issue – Whether Police was authorised to register both cases and investigate these offences
without permission of Court?
Involved Provisions – In this case controversies were revolving around following provisions -

 Section 155(4), Cr.P.C. – In case of involvement of cognizable and non-cognizable

offences, whole offences will be treated as cognizable offence.
23
Haryana Judicial Service (Pre) 2018. Question 108. As per the provision of Section 315 of the Cr.P.C. an
accused (a) can be compelled to give his own evidence generally, (b) Cannot be a witness (c) can be called as a
witness only on his own request in writing, (d) None of these.

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 25

Section 155(4) – Cognizable + Non-Cognizable = Cognizable

 Section 198(1) (c), Cr.P.C. – Court can‘t take cognizance of offence under Section 494,
IPC, unless complaint is made by wife or her relative.

Decision of Courts

SDJM High Court Supreme Court

Section 155(4) Section 198(1) (c) Section 155(4)

Allowed – section 494 Non-cognizable offence

SDJM
Allowed – section 498A(Cognizable offence)
Reason -Section 155(4)

Did not allow – section 494 Non-cognizable offence

High Court
Allowed – section 498A (Cognizable offence)
Reason –Section 198(1) (c)

Allowed – section 494 Non-cognizable offence

Supreme Court
Allowed – section 498A (Cognizable offence)
Reason -Section 155(4)

SDJM - He took cognizance and framed charge for committing offence under section 494 and
section 498A.
High Court –Aggrieved by framing of charge, husband went to High Court under section 482,
Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceeding. High Court emphasized on section 198(1) (c) 24. This
section says that in case of offences related to matrimonial offences only victim or his/her
relative can make complaint and third persons are not allowed. Here bigamy (section 494) is
related to matrimonial offence.

24
Section 198 - Prosecution for offences against marriage (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence
punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some person
aggrieved by the offence: Provided that -
(c) where the person aggrieved by an offence punishable under section 494 or section 495 of the Indian Penal Code
is the wife, complaint may be made on her behalf by her father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter or by her
father's or mother's, brother or sister , with the leave of the Court, by any other person related to her by blood,
marriage or adoption

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 26

In this case complaint was made by wife to Women‘s Commission and Women‘s Commission
made complaint to Police. That Commission was not authorised under section 198(1) (c) to make
complaint regarding commission of offence under section 494, IPC.
Remarks – High Court was right on the point of section 198(1) (c) but committed wrong by
ignoring section 155(4), Cr.P.C.
Supreme Court – Appeal against judgment of High Court was filed in Supreme Court. Supreme
Court held that decision of the High Court was wrong. Supreme Court applied section 155(4) and
held that both offences shall be treated as cognizable offence.
Conclusion - Police was authorised to investigate cases even without permission of any Court.

MADHU BALA v. SURESH KUMAR

Date of Judgment: July 23, 1997. Author of Judgment: Hon‘ble Justice M. Mukherjee

Here there were two complaints i.e.

 To CJM of Kurukshetra on 18/02/1988

 To CJM of Karnal on 29/01/1994

Complaint regarding two offences i.e. -

 Section 498A, IPC

 Section 406, IPC
Issue 1– Whether Magistrate had power under section 156(3)25 to give direction for registration
of FIR.
Issue 2 – Whether a complaint may convert into FIR. If yes, when is it possible?

Answer-

 Lower Court – Yes

 High Court – No
 Supreme Court – Yes

Facts of the Case

First Complaint to Kurukshetra –Madhu Bala filed complaint to CJM, Kurukshetra against
her husband regarding commission of offences under sections 406 & 498A, IPC on 18/02/1988.
CJM by using his power under section 156(3) directed for lodging FIR. FIR was lodged and
Police Report was submitted. CJM took the cognizance regarding commission of offence under
section 406, IPC and regarding section 498A said that he had not territorial jurisdiction.
Regarding this offence, Karnal Court had jurisdiction. So please Madhu Bala go to the Karnal

25
Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C -Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as
abovementioned

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 27

Court regarding section 498A. Territorial jurisdiction of Courts is decided according to Sections
177 to 189, CrPC.
Second Complaint to Karnal – Badhu Bala filed second complain to CJM, Karnal against her
husband regarding commission of offence under section 498A, IPC on 29/01/1994. CJM by
using his power under section 156(3) directed for lodging FIR. FIR was lodged and Police
Report was submitted. CJM took the cognizance regarding commission of offence under section
498A, IPC.

Crux of Facts
Complaint on CJM Kurukshetra took Section 406 Order u/s.156(3) to lodge
18/02/1988 cognizance FIR
Complaint on CJM Karnal took Section 498A Order u/s.156(3) to lodge
29/01/1994 cognizance FIR

High Court – Proceedings before Kurukshetra and Karnal Courts were challenged. High Court
quashed the proceeding of Kurukshetra and Karnal Courts and held that they had no power under
section 156(3) to give direction for lodging FIR. This section authorises only to give direction to
investigate the offence.
Supreme Court – Decision of High Court was challenged before Supreme Court. Supreme
Court held that decision of the High Court was wrong.
(i) Reply of Issue 1 – Doctrine of Implied power was applied. Court can give directions under
Section 156 (3) to lodge FIR. Reason is that the Police cannot start investigation without lodging
of FIR. So it is implied power of the Court to give direction for lodging of FIR. Police can‘t
investigate under section 156 (1) without lodging of formal FIR.
(i) Reply of Issue 2 -
According to Section 2(d), Complaint does not include Police report except in one case. If a
complaint is made to a Magistrate, the Magistrate has two options –

 Either to take cognizance under section 190(1) (a).

Complaint [Section 2(d)] Cognizance [Sec.190(1)(a)].
 Or to give direction under section 156(3) for lodging FIR and conducting investigation.
FIR shall be registered under section 154. Investigation shall be conducted under section
156(1). Police Report shall be submitted under section 173(2). Now Court shall take
cognizance under section 190(1) (b) on the basis of Police Report rather than on
complaint.
Complaint (Section 2 (d) Section 156(3) Section 154 Section 156(1) Section 173(2)
Section 190 (1) (b).

Once on the basis of complaint direction is given under section 156(3), the complaint convert
into FIR under section 154.

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 28

In this case Hon‘ble Justice M. Mukherjee observed, ―In our opinion when an order for
investigation under section 156(3) of the Code is to be made the proper direction to the Police
would be to register a case at the police station treating the complaint as the First Information
Report and investigate into the same‖.

Difference between Complaint and FIR (First Information Report)

There are following differences between both –
SN Grounds Complaint FIR
1 Express/Implied Complaint word has been defined FIR word has not been defined
Provision under section 2(d). There is expressly. Although this word
express provision. has been used in section 207,
Cr.P.C. According to this
section the first information
report recorded under section
154 shall be supplied to the
accused.
2 Kinds There is no kind of Complaint. There are two types of FIR
namely FIR and Zero FIR.
According to Lalita Case there
are two types of FIR namely,
(i) FIR u/s154 &
(ii) FIR u/s157(1)...otherwise..
3 Authority Complaint is made to Magistrate. FIR is made to ‗Officer in
charge of Police Station‘
4 Offence Complaint may be as to any FIR is lodged only about
offence (Either cognizable or non- cognizable offence.
cognizable offence).
5 Criminal law in Merely giving complaint is not By lodging the FIR criminal
motion sufficient. Investigation does not law comes into motion.
start. Barring few cases
investigation starts.
6 Preliminary Sections 200 to 203. Certain After the decision of Lalita
Inquiry procedures have been prescribed Kumari v. Government of
to weed out false and frivolous Uttar Pradesh, registration of
cases. After this process is issued FIR is mandatory except in
under section 204 or section 87 as few cases.
the case may be.
7 Police report According to section 2(d) Police report never converts
Explanation, in exceptional cases into FIR.
Police Report converts into
complaint.
8 Conversion Complaint may convert into FIR FIR cannot convert into
(Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar) complain

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 29

Section 160 of Cr.P.C -Police officer’s power to require attendance of witnesses.26-

(1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter may, by order in writing,
require the attendance before himself of any person being within the limits of his own or any
adjoining station who, from the information given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with
the facts and circumstances of the case; and such person shall attend as so required:
Provided that no male person under the age of fifteen years or above the age of sixty-five years or
a woman or a mentally or physically disabled person shall be required to attend at any place
other than the place in which such male person or woman resides.
(2) The State Government may, by rules made in this behalf, provide for the payment by the
police officer of the reasonable expenses of every person, attending under sub-section (1) at any
place other than his residence.

Section 16127. Examination of witnesses by police.- (1) Any police officer making an
investigation under this Chapter, or any police officer not below such rank as the State
Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on the requisition
of such officer, may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case.
(2) Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him by
such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a
criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.

26
UK (J) (Pre.) Question
Question – Who cannot be called at police station during investigation? (1) Woman (2) male person under the age
of fifteen years or above the age of sixty-five years (3) physically disabled person (4) All of the above.
Answer - (4) All of the above.
UK (J) (Pre.) Question
Under which section woman cannot be called police station for examination during investigation- (1) Section 160
(1) (2) Section 160 (2) (3) Section 161 (1) (4) Section 160 (1) Provided.
Answer - (4) Section 160 (1) Provided. Nandini Satpathy vs Dani (P.L.) and Anr. (7 April, 1978. Justice
Krishnaiyer) is a leading case on section 160 and 161 of Cr.P.C. In this case a former Chief Minister of Orissa
(1972-1976) and one time Minister at the National level Mrs. Nandini Satpathy was directed to appear at the
Vigilance Police Station, Cuttack, in September, 1977 regarding corruption cases. She refused to answer by taking
shield of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. One issue was whether ‗any person supposed to be acquainted
with the facts and circumstances of the case’ includes only witness or accused also. Another issue was whether
accused as mentioned in 20(3) also includes suspected person. Relation between sections 160& 161of Cr.P.C. and
Article 20(3) were discussed.
(1) Calling of woman at police investigation is violation of Section 160 (1) Provided.
(2) Article 20(3) also gives protection during investigation.
(3) The area covered by Art. 20(3) of the Constitution and section 161(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code are
substantially the same. So much so, terminological expansion apart, sec. 161(2) is a parliamentary gloss on the
constitutional clause.
27
DJS (Pre.) – 2019 - In the context of section 161 Cr. P.C which of the following statement is incorrect –
(1) The statement of a female victim of a sexual offence can be recorded only by a woman police officer
(2) The person so examined shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to the case put to him by the police
officer other than questions the answer to which would have a tendency to expose to him a criminal charge
(3) Police officer has to record the statement and get it signed by the person so examined
(4) All of the above.
Answer - (3) Police officer has to record the statement and get it signed by the person so examined. Answer of this
question depends upon sections 160, 161 and 162 of Cr.P.C.

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 30

(3) The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an
examination under this section; and if he does so, he shall make a separate and true record of the
statement of each such person whose statement he records.

Section 162. Statements to police not to be signed28: Use of statements in evidence29-

(1) No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under
this Chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such
statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such
statement or record, be used for any purpose, save as hereinafter provided, at any inquiry or trial
in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made:
Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose
statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly proved,
may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to
contradict such witness in the manner provided by section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act ,
1872 (1 of 1872); and when any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be
used in the re-examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter
referred to in his cross-examination.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the
provisions of clause (1) of section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872); or to affect
the provisions of section 27 of that Act.
Explanation- An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub-
section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise
relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission
amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact.

Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (SC, 4 May, 1965) -The words of section 162 are wide
enough to include a confession made to a police officer in the course of an investigation.

State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram and Others (February 1, 2000)

Fact-Son and mother were killed in night. Trial court, while convicting six accused, mainly
relied on Ex. P31 and Ex.P32 which are the two dying declarations attributed to deceased Ram
Lal (son) and Gamni (mother) respectively which were recorded by PW21, the Investigating
Officer. High Court declined to accept two dying declaration and accused were acquitted.
Supreme Court confirmed the decision of trial Court and Teja was conviced for murder.

28
UP APO 2002, UK APO 2010, UK (J)2009
29
HJS (Pre.) 2009 Question – Statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. can be used to
(a) Corroborate the statement in court
(b) Corroborate and contradict the statement in court
(c) Contradict the statement in court
(d) Cannot be utilized for any purpose.
Answer -(c) Contradict the statement in court. Answer of this depends upon combined reading of sections 161 and
162 (1) Provided of Cr.P.C. and section 145 of IEA as mentioned in section 145 of Indian Evidence Act.

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 31

Disputed Fact- PW21 (Investigating Officer) after preparing the seizure memos Ex.P3 and
Ex.P.4. obtained the signature of the accused concerned in both the seizure memos. It was
contrary to section 162 which says prohibits taking or putting signature. Section 27 deals recover
of facts. Section 27 of IEA is exception of 162, Cr.P.C.

Issue –Whether taking such signature shall vitiated the seizure.

Answer- No.
Decision- Supreme Court observed following points-

 Prohibition of signature is in peremptory terms. It is more a direction to the investigating

officer than to the court because the policy underlying the rule is to keep witnesses free to
testify in court unhampered by anything which the police claim to have elicited from
them.
 But if any Investigating Officer, ignorant of the said provision, secures the signature of
the person concerned in the statement, it does not mean that the witnesses testimony in
the court would thereby become contaminated or vitiated.
 The Court will only reassure the witness that he not bound by such statement albeit his
signature finding a place thereon.
 The prohibition contained in sub-section (1) of section 162 is not applicable to any
proceedings made as per section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is clearly provided in sub-
Section (2) of section 162.

Use of statement recorded during

investigation (section 162)
(By Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor LC-1, FOL, DU)

Inquiry /Trial of the Other than Inquiry /Trial of the offence under Common in
investigation (Use of Ss. 145 and 157 in both
offence under both cases
case -Either prosecutor or defence witness)
investigation

Use
Prosecutor witness Defence witness

S.157 (IEA) S.145 (IEA)

(Corroboration) (Contradiction)

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 32

Rule Exception
(No use) (Use)

(Use) Sec.32(1) (DD) (Use) Sec.27 (Discovery of facts)

By Accused By Prosecutor
(Use) (Hostile witness) (Use)

S.157 (IEA) S.145 (IEA)

(Use)(Only Corroboration) (No Contradiction)

Civil Matter (Use) Writ Petition (Use) Sec.452 (Use) Court witness (Use)
Note- Statement recorded during investigation under section 161 of Cr.P.C. can be used in ten
circumstances. Use and non-use of statement depends upon interpretation of section 162. It is
not substantive piece of evidence. This is most favourite question of interview.
General Rule - Prosecutor witness- Only contradiction, Defence witness – Only corroboration.
Section 164. Recording of confessions and statements30.- (1) Any Metropolitan Magistrate or
Judicial Magistrate31 may, whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case32, record any
confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or under
any other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before the commencement of
the inquiry or trial:
Provided that any confession or statement made under this sub-section may also be recorded by
audio-video electronic means in the presence of the advocate of the person accused of an
offence:
Provided further that no confession shall be recorded by a police officer on whom any power of a
Magistrate has been conferred under any law for the time being in force.

(2) The Magistrate shall, before recording any such confession, explain to the person making it
that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, it may be used as evidence
against him; and the Magistrate shall not record any such confession unless, upon questioning
the person making it, he has reason to believe that it is being made voluntarily.
(3) If at any time before the confession is recorded, the person appearing before the Magistrate
states that he is not willing to make the confession, the Magistrate shall not authorise the
detention of such person in police custody.

30
MP Civil Judge 2005-2006, Chhattisgarh J 2007.
31
UK J 2002, MP Civil Judge 1986 and 2007.
32
MP Civil Judge 2010.

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 33

(4) Any such confession shall be recorded in the manner provided in section 281 for recording
the examination of an accused person and shall be signed by the person making the confession;
and the Magistrate shall make a memorandum at the foot of such record to the following effect:-
―I have explained to (name) that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, any
confession he may make may be used as evidence against him and I believe that this confession
was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing, and was read over to the person
making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a full and true account of the
statement made by him.

(Signed) A. B.
Magistrate.‖

(5) Any statement (other than a confession) made under sub-section (1) shall be recorded in
such manner hereinafter provided for the recording of evidence as is, in the opinion of the
Magistrate, best fitted to the circumstances of the case; and the Magistrate shall have power to
administer oath to the person whose statement is so recorded.
(5A) (a) In cases punishable under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C,
section 354D, subsection (1) or sub-section (2) of section 376, 2[section 376A, section 376AB,
section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB] section 376E or
section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the Judicial Magistrate shall record the
statement of the person against whom such offence has been committed in the manner prescribed
in sub-section (5), as soon as the commission of the offence is brought to the notice of the police:
Provided that if the person making the statement is temporarily or permanently mentally or
physically disabled, the Magistrate shall take the assistance of an interpreter or a special educator
in recording the statement:
Provided further that if the person making the statement is temporarily or permanently mentally
or physically disabled, the statement made by the person, with the assistance of an interpreter or
a special educator, shall be video-graphed.
(b) A statement recorded under clause (a) of a person, who is temporarily or permanently
mentally or physically disabled, shall be considered a statement in lieu of examination-in-chief,
as specified in section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) such that the maker of
the statement can be cross-examined on such statement, without the need for recording the same
at the time of trial.
(6) The Magistrate recording a confession or statement under this section shall forward it to the
Magistrate by whom the case is to be inquired into or tried.

Similarities between recording of confession and statement

Basis Confession Statement

Statute Section 164 (1) & (6) Same
Who can Any Metropolitan Magistrate Same
record? (For Metropolitan area) or Any Judicial Magistrate
(MM or JM) (For other than Metropolitan area)
Timing (1) In the course of an investigation or Same
(2)at any time afterwards before the commencement of the

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 34

inquiry or trial.33
Jurisdiction Jurisdiction of Court is immaterial for recording Same
confession/Statement.

Difference between recording of confession and statement

Basis Confession Statement
Statute Section 164 Section 164
(Clauses 1,2,3,4 & 6) (Clauses 1,5, 5A & 6)
Whom? Accused Victim/Accused
Sign/Oath Sign Oath - Section 164 (5)34
Evidence Substantive Evidence Not Substantive Evidence.
If he comes as a witness, his
statement can be used under
sections 145 and 157 of IEA.
Duties of To inform the accused that he is not bound Here there are no such duties of
Magistrate to make confession and if he makes the Magistrate before recording
confession, that confession may be used statement.
against him. He will ensure that the accused
is making confession voluntarily.

Relation between section 29 of Indian Evidence Act,1872 & Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
There are two types of confession namely, (i)Judicial Confession &(ii) Extra-Judicial Confession
Section 29- If a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevant merely because

 he was not warned that he was not bound to make such confession, and
 that evidence of it might be given against him.

Section 164(4) (Old Cr.P.C 164(3)) - According to section 164(4) Cr.P.C., there are following
duties of the Magistrate before recording confession –

 to inform the person who is going to make confession that he is not bound to make
confession, and
 his confession may be used as evidence against him.
 to ensure that confession was voluntarily.

Section 29 says that warning is not necessary Section 164(4) says that warning is mandatory.

Old Cr.P.C- Presidency Magistrate, Magistrate of the first class New Cr.P.C.
and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in MM or JM can record
confession

33
DJS (Pre.) 2019.
34
Raj. APO2011

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 35

this behalf by the State Government can record confession.

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh & Ors.35

This case was related to 302. The Magistrate who had recorded confession under section 164
gave his oral evidence. A Magistrate recording a confession under s. 164 of the Code is bound to
follow the procedure laid down in it. Mr. Dixit, who recorded the confession in this case was a
second class magistrate and he was not empowered by the State Government to record a
statement or confession under s. 164 of the Code. So this confession was not admissible. A
confession duly recorded under s. 164 would no doubt be a public document under s. 74 of the
Evidence Act which would prove itself under s. 80 of that Act. In this case section 29 of IEA was
neither discussed nor quoted.
Conclusion – After combined reading of section 29, section 164 and Singhara Singh case, it can
be inferred that section 29 is applicable only in case of extra-judicial confession and section 164
is applicable to judicial confession.

Section 164 Cr. P. C.

(Confession and Statement)
Krishna Murari Yadav, Law Centre -1, FOL,
University of Delhi

Who can record confession or statement u/s 164?

Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Any Judicial Magistrate

Where? (Jurisdiction) When? Timing

(Jurisdiction of Court is immaterial for recording confession/Statement)

35
AIR 1964 SC 358. Date of Judgment: August 16, 1963)

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 36

(1) In the course of an investigation or (2)at any time afterwards before the
commencement of the inquiry or trial

Section 164 Cr. P. C.

(Confession/ Statement)

Confession (Accused) (Clauses 1,2,3,4, &6) Statement (Victim/ Accused) (Clauses 1, 5,5A & 6)
(Sign by accused and Magistrate) (Oath taken by maker)

Substantive evidence Not Substantive evidence

(If maker comes as a witness)

Section 145 and Section 157

Duties of Magistrate recording confession - The Magistrate shall, before recording any such
confession, explain to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if
he does so, it may be used as evidence against him; and the Magistrate shall ensure that
confession is voluntarily.

Duties of Magistrate recording statement - Any statement (other than a confession) shall be
recorded as recording of evidence and the Magistrate shall have power to administer oath to the
person whose statement is so recorded.
* The Magistrate recording a confession or statement under this section shall forward it to the
Magistrate by whom the case is to be inquired into or tried.

Section 164A36 - Medical examination of the victim of rape.37—(1) Where, during the stage
when an offence of committing rape or attempt to commit rape is under investigation, it is
proposed to get the person of the woman with whom rape is alleged or attempted to have been
committed or attempted, examined by a medical expert, such examination shall be conducted by
a registered medical practitioner employed in a hospital run by the Government or a local

36
UP (J) Pre. 2018 Question – Under section 164A of the Cr.P.C. the victim of the rape shall be sent to a registered
medical practitioner for the examination within…….. from the time of receiving the information relating to the
commission of such offence –
(a) 6 hours (b) 12 hours(c) 24 hours (d) 36 hours.
Answer - (c) 24 hours.
37
Ins. by Act 25 of 2005, s. 17 (w.e.f. 23-6-2006).

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 37

authority and in the absence of such a practitioner, by any other registered medical practitioner,
with the consent of such woman or of a person competent to give such consent on her behalf
38
and such woman shall be sent to such registered medical practitioner within twenty-four hours
from the time of receiving the information relating to the commission of such offence.

Section 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.

(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation
cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 57, and there are
grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well founded, the officer in charge of
the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of
sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries
in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the
accused to such Magistrate.39
(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he
has or has no jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused
in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole;
and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention
unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:
Provided that—
(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in custody
of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for
doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under
this paragraph for a total period exceeding -
(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;
(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said
period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on
bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-
section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the
purposes of that Chapter.

(2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the officer in
charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the
rank of a sub-inspector, may, where a Judicial Magistrate is not available, transmit to the
nearest Executive Magistrate, on whom the powers of a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan
Magistrate have been conferred, a copy of the entry in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to
the case, and shall, at the same time, forward the accused to such Executive Magistrate, and
thereupon such Executive Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, authorise the
detention of the accused person in such custody as he may think fit for a term not exceeding
seven days in the aggregate; and on the expiry of the period of detention so authorised, the
accused person shall be released on bail except where an order for further detention of the
accused person has been made by a Magistrate competent to make such order; and, where an
38
UP APO 2007
39
Article 22 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 38

order for such further detention is made, the period during which the accused person was
detained in custody under the orders made by an Executive Magistrate under this sub-section,
shall be taken into account in computing the period specified in paragraph (a) of the proviso to
sub-section (2).

Section 167 (1) Police Clause (1) will come into role when investigation
could not be completed under section 5740 and
further custody is necessary.
Section 167 (2) Judicial Magistrate Clause (2) will come into role when all conditions
of Clause (1) have been satisfied.
Section 167 (2-A) Executive Magistrate It will come in extra-ordinary situation.

Section 167(1)
There are following ingredients of section 167(1) –
 There must be arrest and custody rather than arrest and release.
 it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four
hours fixed by section 5741 and
 there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well founded
 It is duty of the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the
investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector forthwith transmit to the
nearest Judicial Magistrate
 Two things must be transmitted to Magistrate i.e.(1) a copy of the entries in the diary,
and (2) shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate

Section 167 (2) & (2A)

Executive Magistrate. But not Section 7Days Police custody & Judicial Custody
any executive Magistrate. Only 167 or vice versa
those Executive Magistrates (2A)
on whom the powers of a
Judicial Magistrate or
Metropolitan Magistrate have
been conferred
Judicial Magistrate Section 15 Days Police custody or Judicial Custody
167 (2) or vice versa
Judicial Magistrate Section 90 Days Judicial Custody
167 (2) (90-15 where the investigation relates to
=75) an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or
imprisonment for a term of not

40
Section 57 - Person arrested not to be detained more than twenty-four hours - No police officer shall detain
in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case is
reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under section 167, exceed
twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate‘s Court.
41
Section 167 is supplementary to section 57. Intention of legislature is that investigation must be completed within
24 hours.

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 39

less than ten years

Judicial Magistrate Section 60 Days Judicial Custody
167 (2) (60-15 where the investigation relates to
=45) any other offence

PROVISIONS WHEN INVESTIGATION IS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN 24 HOURS42

According to section 57 person arrested without warrant cannot be detained beyond 24 hours
without the special order of Magistrate under section 167. 24 hours have been allowed so that
investigation in non-serious offences can be completed at level of police station. If it could not
be completed within 24 hours and further detention of the arrested person is necessary, recourse
of section 167 has to be taken. Section 167 deals procedure when investigation cannot be
completed in twenty-four hours. There are following procedure mentioned under section 167-

(1) Investigation not completed in 24 hours and grounds for believing that the accusation
or information is well founded - Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and
it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed
by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well
founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation,
if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial
Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall
at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.43
(2) Police custody and Judicial custody and vice-versa for 15 days-
The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has
or has no jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in
such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole;
and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention
unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:

(3) Judicial Custody for 90 or 60 Days –

(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in custody
of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for
doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under
this paragraph for a total period
exceeding—

42
Uttar Pradesh (J) 1992 - Question- What are the provisions under Cr.P.C. for the investigation when it is not
completed within 24 hours?
43
Article 22 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 40

(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;
(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence.

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rustam (1995) (SC)

Facts- The accused was sent jail on Sept. 3, 1993. Challan was submitted on December 2, 1993.
(Sept 1993- 30Days ,Oct. 1993- 31Days and Nov 1993- 30Days).In this case counting of 90 and
60 days were involved.
Sept. (30 Days) –
3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30
Oct.(31Days)-
1,2 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31
Nov. (30 Days)-
1,2 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31
Dec.(31Days)-
1,2
Decision -Supreme Court held that clear 90 or 60 days must expire before the right begins. In
computing the period of 90 or 60 days on either side has to be excluded as required under 9 and
10 of General Clauses Act. In this case challan was submitted within 90 days so there was no
question of granting bail by default.
For example, 03 September is excluded. Exact 90th day Police Report was submitted. So accused
was not entitled to get bail.
 Even after expiry of 90 days, arrested person can claim bail. But it must be beorethe
submission of Challan under section 173. Once Challan is submitted investigation
complete. Section 167 is applicable only during investigation.
Example 1-
A was arrested for causing death of B. He was in custody. He was unaware about default bail.
One day in ‗Outreach Programme‘ of LSS, Law centre -1, Miss Nikita informed his relative
about default bail as prescribed under section 167, Cr.P.C. He applied for default bail on 101st
day. Police Report was submitted on 102nd day. There are following option –
(a) A is not entitled to get default bail.
(b) A is entitled to get default bail.
(c) A is entitled to get default bail because still investigation was going on.
(d) A is not entitled to get default bail because there was inordinate delay
Answer- (c) A is entitled to get default bail because still investigation was going on.

Example 2-
A was arrested for causing death of B. He was in custody. He was unaware about default bail.
One day in ‗Outreach Programme‘ of LSS, Law centre -1, Miss Nikita informed his relative
about default bail as prescribed under section 167, Cr.P.C. He applied for default bail on 102nd
day. Police Report had been submitted on 101st day. There are following option –

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 41

(a) A is not entitled to get default bail.

(b) A is entitled to get default bail.
(c) A is entitled to get default bail because still investigation was going on.
(d) A is not entitled to get default bail because after submission of Police Report ‗Investigation‘
had been completed and he had applied for bail after completion of investigation.
Answer-(d) A is not entitled to get default bail because after submission of Police Report
‗Investigation‘ had been completed and he had applied for bail after completion of investigation.

(4) Bail- On the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the
accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every
person released on bail.

Shardulbhai Lakhmanbhai v. State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)

Whether an accused person has an absolute right to be released on bail under proviso (a) to
Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 even after submission of the police
report/charge-sheet, if the charge-sheet has been submitted after the period prescribed in the said
proviso?
In this case Gujarat High Court observed that compulsory bail under section 167 is available
only during investigation. Once charge-sheet is submitted investigation closed. So the accused
does not have right to be released on bail under proviso (a) to section 167 (2) once the
investigation comes to an end by filing charge-sheet. Accused person must be ready to get bail.
The accused has absolute right to be released on bail under the proviso (a) to section 167 (2) of
the Code for the default of the prosecution in not completing the investigation within time limit
prescribed thereunder in the sense that he is entitled to be released on bail by showing that the
investigation has not been completed or the charge-sheet has not been filed within the prescribed
time limit, without anything more.
Default Bail or Statutory Bail or Mandatory Bail
This bail is granted due to default of investigating authority who could not file ‗Police Report‘ or
‗Challan‘ under section 173 of Cr.P.C. within specified period. In the case of Rakesh Kumar
Paul v. State of Assam (16 August, 2017) Supreme Court observed, ―The significance of the
period of 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, is that if the investigation is not completed
within that period then the accused (assuming he or she is in custody) is entitled to ‗default bail‘
if no charge sheet or challan is filed on the 60th or 90th day, the accused applies for ‗default bail‘
and is prepared to and does furnish bail for release‖.
(5) Cancellation of Bail- There is no specific provisions for cancellation of bail under section
167. But it has been provided that bail granted under section 167 shall be deemed to be granted
under Chapter XXXIII. So it can be cancelled under section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C.
Conclusion – In the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar Supreme Court observed that before
a Magistrate authorises detention under Section 167 Cr.P.C., he has to be first satisfied that the
arrest made is legal and in accordance with law and all the constitutional rights of the person

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 42

arrested are satisfied. If the arrest effected by the police officer does not satisfy the requirements
of Section 41 of the Code, Magistrate is duty-bound not to authorise his further detention and
release the accused.

SECTION 169 (FINAL REPORT)

(Release of accused when evidence deficient)
If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police
station that
 there is not sufficient evidence or
 reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a
Magistrate,
such officer shall, if such person is in custody, release him on his executing a bond, with or
without sureties, as such officer may direct, to appear, if and when so required, before a
Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, and to try the
accused or commit him for trial.

Abhinandan Jha & Ors v. Dinesh Mishra (17 April, 1967)

It will be seen that the Code, as such, does not use the expression ‗charge-sheet‘ or ‗final report.
But it is understood, in the Police Manual containing Rules and Regulations, that a report by the
Police, filed under s. 170 of the Code, is referred to as a ‘charge-sheet’. But in respect of the
reports sent under s. 169, i.e., when there is no sufficient evidence to justify the forwarding of the
accused to a Magistrate, it is termed variously, in different States, as either ‘referred charge’,
‘final report’, or ‘Summary’.

SECTION 170 (CHARGE-SHEET)

Cases to be sent to Magistrate, when evidence is sufficient.

CASE DIARY
Section 172 of Cr.P.C. deals case diary. There are three parts of this section namely;
(1) Contents of diary, and (2) Manner of preparation of diary (3) Use of diary. Details of these
are -
(1) Contents of diary- According to section 172 (1) every police officer making an investigation
under this Chapter shall day by day enter his proceedings in the investigation in a diary, setting
forth the time at which the information reached him, the time at which he began and closed his
investigation, the place or places visited by him, and a statement of the circumstances ascertained
through his investigation. According to section 172 (1A) the statements of witnesses recorded
during the course of investigation under section 161 shall be inserted in the case diary.
(2) Manner of preparation of diary - According to section 172 (1B) Case diary referred shall
be a volume and duly paginated.
(3) Use of Diary – Use of diaries may be divided into three parts –

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 43

(I) Use by Court

(II) Use by accused or his agent
(III) Use by Police officer

(I) Use by Court- According to section 172 (2) Any Criminal Court may send for the police
diaries of a case under inquiry or trial in such Court, and may use such diaries, not as evidence in
the case, but to aid it in such inquiry or trial.

(II) Use by accused or his agent- Neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for
such diaries, nor shall he or they be entitled to see them merely because they are referred to by
the Court. There are two exceptions -
(a) if they are used by the police officer who made them to refresh his memory, or
(b) if the Court uses them for the purpose of contradicting such police officer, the provisions
of section 161 or section 145, as the case may be, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872),
shall apply.

(III) Use by Police officer - Police officer may use it for refreshing memory.

Section 172

Contents Manner Use

Section 172(1) (1A) Section 172(1B) Section 172(2) &(3)

USE

By Court By Prosecutor By Accused

Rule Exception

GENERAL DIARY

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 44

According to Section 44 of the Police Act, 1861, ―It shall be the duty of every officer in charge
of a police station to keep a general diary in such form shall, from time to time, be prescribed by
the State Government and to record therein all complaints and charges preferred, the names of all
persons arrested, the names of the complainants, the offences charged against them, the weapons
or property that shall have been taken from their possession or otherwise, and the names of the
witnesses who shall have been examined‖. FIR is registered in General Diary.
Para 294 to 299 of UP Police Regulation also deal ‗General Diary‘.

Sections Important Words Remarks

Section 154 FIR FIR is written in ‘General Diary’. It is
also called ‘Police Diary’.
Section 157 Preliminary Report
Section 167 Default Bail/Statutory Bail Default of investigating officer
Section 169 ‗Referred charge‘, ‗Final report‘, or There is no sufficient evidence
‗Summary‘. Closure Report
Section 170 Charge-sheet There is sufficient evidence
Section172 Case Diary
Section 173 Police Report or Challan/ Completion
Report
No Provision Protest Petition44 There is no provision in the Code to file
Only in protest petition is in the nature of a a protest petition by the informant who
practice complaint, it is referable to the lodged the first information report. But
investigation already held by the this has been the practice.45
vigilance police culminating in the
final report

Section 173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation.—(1) Every investigation

under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay.
(1A) The investigation in relation to an offence under sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C,
376D,376DA, 376DB or 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be completed within
two months46 from the date on which the information was recorded by the officer in charge of
the police station.
(2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a
Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form
prescribed by the State Government.47

44
Supreme Court stressed on the desirability of intimation being given to the informant when a report made
under Section 173(2) is under consideration.
45
Vishnu Kumar Tiwari v. The State of Uttar Pradesh. Date of Judgment: July 09, 2019
46
..―rape of a child may be completed within three months” was substituted in 2018. Now ‘shall’ word has been
used. Three months has been substituted by two months. Earlier There was time bound investigation only in child
rape cases. Now investigation within two months must be completed in all types of rape cases.
47
Haryana J S (Pre) 2018.
Question- Under section 173 of the Cr.P.C. as amended in 2018, the investigation into the offence of rape shall be
completed within a span of :
(a) Six Months (b) Four Months(c) One Month(d) two Months.
Answer - (d) two Months.

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 45

‘POLICE REMAND’ & ‘JUDICIAL REMAND’

There are following differences between both-

S.No. ‘Police Remand’ ‘Judicial Remand’/Custody

1. During the ‗Police Remand‘ During the „Judicial Remand’
Place after suspected person is kept into ‗Police suspected person is kept into ‗Jail‘.
remand Lock up‘.
2. According to section 167 of Cr.P.C. Section 167 also deals
Period of maximum period for which ‗Police statutory/default bail. After 15 days
remand Remand‘ can be granted is 15 days judicial remand may be allowed.
except in special case for example Magistrate may authorise detention
under Maharashtra Control of beyond 15 day. But if the police
Organised Crime Act, 1999 (Section report is not submitted in 90 days
21) where 30 days for police remand (where the investigation relates to
is allowed. an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or
imprisonment for a term of not less
than ten years) or 60 days (where
the investigation relates to any
other offence) as the case may be,
the accused shall be entitled for
bail.
3. He is interrogated. He is remanded He is not interrogated. During
Interrogation for taking help in investigation. Judicial Custody, the police officer

UP (J) (Pre) 2018.

Which of the following section of the Cr.P.C. has been amended by the Criminal Law( Amendment) Act, 2018
(a) section 163 (b) section 173(c) section 183(d) section 193.
Answer – (b) section 173. This amendment changed rape laws and investigation and submission of police report in
rape cases.

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 46

in charge of the case is not allowed

to interrogate the suspect except
with permission of Court in special
circumstances.
4. A police officer in charge of a In Judicial Custody, suspect
Responsibility suspect may treat the suspect becomes responsibility of Court.
arbitrarily.
In Police Custody, suspect becomes
responsibility of Officer in charge of
the Case.
5. Authorizing Police authority cannot take ‗Police Judicial authority authorizes
authority Remand‘ suo motu. Only Court can ‗Judicial Remand‘
authorise for ‗Police Remand‘.

Procedure for Investigation

For the purpose of arrest and investigation offences have been divided into two parts namely (1)
Cognizable offence, and (2) Non-cognizable offence. In cognizable cases person can be arrested
and investigation can be started without order or warrant of Magistrate. In case of non-
cognizable cases neither person can be arrested (except 42) and nor investigation can be started
without order or warrant of Magistrate. There are following differences between both-

Grounds Cognizable offence Non-cognizable offence

Registration If information is given regarding When information is given to an officer
of commission of cognizable offence, in charge of a police station of the
Information generally police officer is bound to commission of a non-cognizable
register FIR without preliminary offence, he shall enter the substance of
inquiry. Here informant is not sent to the information in a prescribed book
Magistrate. and refer the informant to the
Magistrate.
Sending of According to Section 157, Officer in Here investigation starts on the
Report charge of Police Station shall direction of Magistrate so there is no
forthwith send a report of the FIR to a such provisions for sending of report
Magistrate empowered to take
cognizance of such offence upon a
police report.
Initiation of Generally investigation starts after According to Section 155(2)
Investigation lodging an FIR under section 154. investigation in non-cognizable cases
starts only after the order of Magistrate.
Power to According to section 156 (1) any According to section 155(2), no police
investigate officer in charge of a police station officer shall investigate a non-
may, without the order of a Magistrate, cognizable case without the order of a
investigate any cognizable case. Magistrate having power to try such
case or commit the case for trial.
Arrest Police has power to investigate as well According to section 155(3) any police
as arrest without warrant. officer receiving such order may

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 47

exercise the same powers in respect of

the investigation (except the power to
arrest without warrant) as an officer in
charge of a police station may exercise
in a cognizable case.
Investigation If investigation is not completed within Here there is no such specific
within 24 24 hours then procedure mention in procedure.
hours section167 must be followed.

PREVIOUS YEARS QUESTION PAPERS

LL.B. DU 2017 - Question 1
What is first information report? Whether a police officer who receives any information under
section 154 or comes to know otherwise under section 157 is under an obligation to register an
FIR or does he or she have discretion to conduct preliminary inquiry? Explain in the light of the
case Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2013).
LL.B. DU 2019 - Question 1(a)
Registration of FIR is mandatory under section 154 of Cr.P.C if the information discloses
commission of cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in this situation.
If the information received does not discloses cognizable offence but indicates necessity for an
inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is
disclosed or not. Discuss with the help of case laws.

Remark- Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.

LL.B. DU 2019 - Question 2(a)

 What is ambit of power of the magistrate under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., 1973?
 Whether the aggrieved person has right to claim the offence be investigated by any
particular agency of his choice?
Discuss with the help of case law.
Remark- Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar,
Question 1 (UP J Mains) - What is First Information Report? What is its evidentiary value?48
Question 2 (UP J Mains) – Distinguish between Police Report and FIR.
DJS (Pre) 2019-Question 5 -The Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari held that while
ensuring and protecting the right of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry
should be made in a time bound manner and in any case it should not exceed:(1) 7 Days (2) 5
Days (3) 10 Days (4) 14 Days.
Answer - (1) 7 Days. In Lalita Kumari Case (2013) it was said that preliminary inquiry must be
completed within 7 days. Lalita Kumari Case (2013) was modified by ‗Order‘ of Supreme Court
in 2014 by Lalita Kumari Case (2014) and 7 days was modified by 15 days.

48
UP(J) Mains 2000 Q. 9.

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi

 48

Question 7 DJS (Pre.) 2019

Section 164 of Cr.P.C. provides for recording of a confession or statement:
(1) in the course of an investigation only (2) at any time after the conclusion of investigation and
before the commencement of the trial (3) during the course of an investigation or at any time
afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial (4) During investigation, inquiry or
trial.
Answer - (3) during the course of an investigation or at any time afterwards before the
commencement of the inquiry or trial.
Question DJS (Pre.) 2019 - An accused is entitled to statutory bail (default bail) if the police
fails to file the charge-sheet within how many days of his arrest for the offence punishable
imprisonment up to 10 years –
(1) 30Days (2) 60Days (3) 90Days (4) 180Days.

Answer - (2) 60Days.

Haryana Judicial Service Exam (2018) (Code A) Question no. 102

(MPAPO- 2000, UK (J) 2008& 2011), MP Civil Judge 2005-2006, Chhattisgarh 2007)
Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. provides that, the nature of the custody can be altered from judicial
custody to police custody and vice versa. This altercation can be done during the period of first
(a) 15 Days (b) 16 Days (c) 14 Days (d) 12 Days.
Answer - (a) 15 Days.

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW Centre-1, University of Delhi