Judicial Service Examination: Practice Questions on FIR Based On Supreme Court Judgements

1.Dr. Ajay gave a statement to police that his 14 year old daughter Anusha was killed by his servant Manuraj. Police registered an FIR based on the statement of Dr.Ajay. Police questioned Dr.Neelam, wife of Dr.Ajay and she also gave a statement in tune with the statement of Dr.Ajay. On investigation it was revealed that Anusha was killed by the Doctor Couple. In such circumstances-

(a) Police shall register a new FIR

(b) No need of registering a new FIR, only a report shall be filed

(c) the second FIR should be treated as the original FIR.

(d) None of the above

Ans.(b)

2. An unmarried girl of aged 16 years was raped by X . The occurrence, according to the prosecutrix, took place on the night intervening the 20th and 21st August, 1972. The first information report was lodged on 31st August, 1972. The complainant had given an explanation for lodging it after ten days of he occurrence. She stated that as honour of the family was involved, its members had to decide whether to take the matter to the court or not.

(a) The delay is fatal

(b) The delay is not fatal since the explanation is reasonable

(c) Depends

(d) None of the above

Ans.(b) [ AIR 1981 SC 361]

3. "Firing had taken place at the taxi stand, Ludhiana." The above telephone message was received by Hari Singh, A. S. I., Police Station, City Kotwali at 5.35 p.m on September 8, 1969. The person conveying the information did not disclose his identity. Can it be treated as an FIR?

(a) Yes

(b) No

(c) Depends

(d) None of the above

Ans.(b) [ AIR 1970 SC 1566]

4. Can an FIR be used to corroborate the testimony of a person other than its maker?

(a) Yes

(b) No

(c) depends

(d) None of the above.

Ans.(b)

5. Is it necessary to get permission of Chief Justice of India before registering an FIR against a sitting Judge of High Court or Supreme Court?

(a) Yes

(b) No

(c) depends

(d) None of the above.

Ans.(a)

6. In which of the following Case, the Supreme Court held that it is necessary to get permission of Chief Justice of India before registering an FIR against a sitting Judge of High Court or Supreme Court?

(a) S.P.Gupta Vs Union of India

(b) All India Judges Association Vs Union of India

(c) Veeraswamy Vs Union of India

(d) None of the above.

Ans.(c) [ 1991(3)SCC 655]

5. A First Information Statement was lodged by X regarding the death of Y in Kundara police station. After recording it the police found that the occurrence happened in the limits of Kilikolloor Police Station. There was a delay occurred in transferring the FIR to the Kilikolloor Police Station.

(a) The delay is fatal

(b) The delay is not fatal

(c) Depends

(d) None of the above

Ans.(b) [ AIR 1974 SC 1901]

6. In Damodar Vs State [ AIR 2003 SC 4414) the Supreme Court held that

(a) Anonymous Cryptic message can be treated as an FIR

(b) Anonymous Cryptic message cannot be treated as an FIR

(c) A cryptic message can be treated as an FIR if the informant disclosed his identity

(d) None of the above

Ans.(b)

7. In Ram Lal Narang Vs. Om Prakash Narang and Another,[AIR 1979 SC 1791] , Supreme Court considered wherein two FIRs had been lodged. The first one formed part of a subsequent larger conspiracy which came to the light on receipt of fresh information. Some of the conspirators were common in both the FIRs and the object of conspiracy in both the cases was not the same. After considering the facts of the said case, the Court came to the conclusion that

(a) both conspiracies were identical and lodging of two FIRs was held not to be permissible

(b) both conspiracies were not identical and lodging of two FIRs was held to be permissible

(c) In cases of Criminal Conspiracy there cannot be two FIRs

(d) None of the above

Ans.(b) [See 2010(8)SCALE 519]

8. In which of the following Case, the Supreme Court held that there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. The investigating agency has to proceed only on the information about commission of a cognizable offence which is first entered in the Police Station diary by the Officer In - charge under S.158 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and all other subsequent information would be covered by S.162 CrPC for the reason that it is the duty of the Investigating Officer not merely to investigate the cognizable offence report in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and the Investigating Officer has to file one or more reports under S.173 CrPC"?.

(a) Ram Lal Narang Vs. Om Prakash Narang and Another

(b) T.T.Antony Vs State of Kerala

(c) Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and Others

(d) None of the above

Ans.(b) [ AIR 2001 SC 2637]

9. In regard to an incident which took place on 20th of May, 1995 at about 10.00 AM, a complaint was lodged .by A with the Sikhera Police Station in the vil¬lage Fahimpur Kalan. In the said complaint B and some other persons were arrayed as accused. On the basis of the said complaint the police registered a Crime under Sections 452 and 307 IPC against the appellant . B alleges that he too lodged a complaint in regard to the very same offence against the A for having committed offences punishable under Sec¬tions 506 and 307 IPC but since the said com¬plaint was not entertained by the police con¬cerned, he tried to approach the Superin-tendent of Police and District Magistrate and having failed in his attempts to get his com¬plaint registered he filed petition under Sec¬tion 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar. The learned Magistrate having found prima facie case as per his order dated 11th July, 1995 directed the police, Sekhera Po¬lice Station to register a Crime against the accused persons named in the said com¬plaint of the appellant and to investigate the same and submit a report within 2 months. In view of the directions issued by the Magistrate the concerned police registered a Crime No. 48-A of 1995 under Sec¬tions 147, 148, 149 and 307, IPC. B approached the High Court for quashing the FIR in the light of the Supreme Court Judgment in T.T. Antony Vs State of Kerala AIR 2001 SC 2637. Decide

(a) Second FIR is liable to be quashed since it is also regarding the same offence and RulE in T.T.Antony case squarely applicable

(b) Second FIR is not liable to be quashed since Rule in T.T.Anony will not apply to a counter claim by the accused in the first complaint or on his behalf alleging a different version of the said incident

(c) Depends

(d) None of the above

Ans.(b) [AIR 2004 SC 4320]

10. T. T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala [AIR 2001 SC 2637]. has precluded an aggrieved person from filing a counter case. The Statement is

(a) True

(b) False

(c) Partly Correct

(d) None of the above

Ans.( b)[AIR 2004 SC 4320]