Questions And Answers By Justice V. Ramkumar- Investigation By Police-PART V

Q.21 Can a General Diary Entry ("GD Entry" for short) disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence be treated as an FIR?

Ans. Yes. (Vide para 16 of CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh (2003) 6 SCC 175 = AIR 2003 SC 4140 - N. Santhosh Hegde, B. P. Singh - JJ).

NOTE:- All information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in the registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the General Diary maintained under Section 44 of the Police Act, 1861 and the decision to conduct a "preliminary inquiry" must also be reflected therein. (Vide paras 69, 70 and 72 of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP (2014) 2 SCC 1 = AIR 2014 SC 187 – 5 Judges – P. Sathasivam – CJI, Dr. B. S. Chauhan, Renjana Prakash Desai, Ranjan Gogoi, S. A. Bobde - JJ).

Q.22 Can a telephone message received by the SHO regarding the commission of a cognizable offence be treated as an FIR?

Ans. Where the telephonic information recorded in the daily diary book disclosing a cognizable offence treated as the FIR in the case. (Vide Sunil Kumar v. State of MP (1997) 10 SCC 570 = AIR 1997 SC 940 – M. K. Mukherjee, B. N. Kirpal - JJ).

The officer-in-charge (PW 18) first received telephonic message from a camp about the riot and he immediately visiting crime scene and starting investigation. Thereafter PW 2 lodging a complaint which was treated as FIR. Held: that the telephonic message was the FIR and the subsequent statement of PW 2 was to be treated as a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C and liable to be used only for contradicting PW 2. (Vide para 15 of Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Debbarma v. State of Tripura (2014) 4 SCC 747 = 2014 Cri.L.J 1830 – K. S. Radhakrishnan, Vikramajit Sen - JJ).

If the telephonic information received is incomplete without any details regarding the identity of the accused or the victims, nature of injuries caused, name of the culprits etc, such information cannot be treated as an FIR. (Vide para 32 of Ravishwar Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand (2008) 16 SCC 561 = AIR 2009 SC 1262 – S. B. Sinha, Cyriac Joseph – JJ).

A vague and cryptic telephonic message cannot be treated as an FIR since its object is only to get the police to the scene of crime and not to register FIR. (vide paras 100 to 110 and 303 (3) of Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1 = AIR 2010 SC 2352 - P. Sathasivam, Swatanter Kumar - JJ).

A cryptic telephonic information given by an unknown person informing the death of an unknown person to the police cannot be treated as an FIR. (Vide –

Paras 33 to 37 of Surajit Sarkar v. State of WB (2013) 2 SCC 146 = AIR 2013 SC 807 – Swatanter Kumar, Madan B. Lokur - JJ;

Para 12 of Animireddy Venkata Ramana v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP (2008) 5 SCC 368 = AIR 2008 SC 1603 – S. B. Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi - JJ;

Para 9 of Mundrika Mahto v. State of Bihar (2002) 9 SCC 183 = AIR 2002 SC 2042 – U. C. Banerjee, Y. K. Sabharwal – JJ ;

Ramsinh Bavaji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (1994) 2 SCC 685 = 1994 Cri.L.J. 3067 – Jayachandra Reddy, N. P. Singh - JJ;

State of UP v. P.A Madhu (1984) 4 SCC 83 = AIR 1984 SC 1523 - 3 Judges – Murtaza Fazl Ali, A. Varadarajan, Sabyasachi Mukharji - JJ;

Para 52 of Anand Mohan v. State of Bihar (2012) 7 SCC 225 = 2013 Cri.L.J. 2644 – A. P. Patnaik, Swatanter Kumar – JJ ;

Para 10 of State of A.P v. V.V.Panduranga Rao (2009) 15 SCC 211 = 2009 Cri.L.J. 2972 – Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Asok Kumar Ganguly - JJ).

Q.23 What is the procedure for registering an FIR?

Ans. Going by the wording of Section 154 (1) Cr.P.C, when "information" relating to the commission of a "cognizable offence" is given either orally or in writing to the officer-in-charge of a Police station, the same shall be entered in the FIR Book (FIR Register) by giving a unique annual number to each FIR as mandated by Section 154 (1) Cr.P.C. A gist of the FIR is to be simultaneously mentioned in the General Diary ("GD" for short maintained under Section 44 of the Police Act, 1861). This is a mandatory duty of the SHO who has no freedom or option not to register an FIR. (Vide paras 48, 57 to 67, 61, 63 and para 111 (i), (iv), (viii) of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1 = AIR 2014 SC 187 - 5 Judges – P. Sathasivam – CJI, Dr. B. S. Chauhan, Renjana Prakash Desai, Ranjan Gogoi, S. A. Bobde - JJ ).

Q.24 Is not the SHO entitled to carry the FIR Book with him to the place of occurrence ?

Ans. No. FIR Book is to be kept in the Police Station at all times. If the SHO gets information about the commission of a cognizable offence, he should make an entry in the General Diary and proceed to the place of occurrence and record a complaint from the place of occurrence. (Vide Sevi v. State of T.N. 1981 Supp. SCC 43 = AIR 1981 SC 1230 – O. Chinnappa Reddy, Baharul Islam – JJ ).

Q.25 Is not the duty of the SHO to supply copy of the FIR to the informant, mandatory and will not failure to supply copy, vitiate the investigation ?

Ans. Section 154 (2) Cr.P.C. obliging the SHO to give a copy of the information recorded under Section 154 (1) Cr.P.C. free of cost to the informant, is not mandatory but is only directory. It is only if prejudice or injustice has been caused due to the infraction of the said provision, will the Court quash the proceedings. (Vide State v. N. S. Gnaneswaran (2013) 3 SCC 594 = AIR 2013 SC 3673 – Dr. B. S. Chauhan & V. Gopala Gowda – JJ ).

Part 1: Questions And Answers By Justice V. Ramkumar- Investigation By Police-PART I

Part 2: Questions And Answers By Justice V. Ramkumar- Investigation By Police-PART II

Part 3: Questions And Answers By Justice V. Ramkumar- Investigation By Police-PART III

Part 4: Questions And Answers By Justice V. Ramkumar(4) -Investigation By Police-PART IV

Part 6: Questions And Answers By Justice V. Ramkumar- Investigation By Police-PART V