FACULTY OF LAW, JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

SUBJECT- CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE- I

ASSIGNMENT TOPIC- INVESTIGATION AND STEPS INVOLVED UNDER CRPC

SUBMITTED BY- DEEPANSHU SHAKARGAYE

SUBMITTED TO- DR. ASAD MALIK

CLASS ROLL NO.- 16

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

1
Research Methodology
The project is basically based on the doctrinal method of research and field work is also done on this
topic.
Aims & Objectives
To do an in depth analysis of the INVESTIGATION AND STEPS INVOLVED UNDER CRPC and
the general provisions related to it. The main objective of this project is to ascertain the concept of
Investigation and the steps involved under CRPC. Also, it is to ascertain that how much it is applicable
in legal areas.
Sources of Data
The whole project is made with the use of secondary source. The following secondary sources of data
have been used in the project-
1. Books

2. Websites

Mode of Citation
The researcher has followed a uniform mode of citation throughout the course of this research paper.

Type of Study
For this topic, the researcher has opted for Descriptive and Explanatory type of study as in this topic,
the researcher is providing the descriptions of the existing facts.

INDEX

2
 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………4

INVESTIGATION WITH RESPECT TO THE COGNIZABLE OFFENCE & NON

COGNIZABLE OFFRNCEBY POLICE………………………………………………………4
INVESTIGATION BY POLICE (COGNIZABLE OFFENCE)……………………………6
INVESTIGATION BEYOND TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION…………………………8
ORDER OF INVESTIGATION BY MAGISTRATE {SEC. 156(3)}……………………..8
WHEN POLICE ITSELF IS A COMPLAINANT……………………………………………10
STEPS INVOLVED IN INVESTIGATION………………………………………………….11
FIRST INFORMATION REPORT (F.I.R) [SEC. 154]……………………………………11
WHEN A STATEMENT AMOUNTS TO F.I.R?................................................................12
OMISSION IN THE F.I.R WHETHER JUSTIFIED?..........................................................14
DELAY IN FILLING F.I.R………………………………………………………………..14
CHARGESHEET……………………………………………………………………………..15
SUPPLIMENTARY REPORT ON FURTHER INVESTIGATION [Sec. I73(8)]…………..15
INQUEST REPORT………………………………………………………………………….16

Evidentiary value of Inquest Report……………………………………………………………...18

Curbing Violence Against Women [Sec. 174(3)3 ]……………………………………….20

POLICE DIARY……………………………………………………………………………...21
Use Permitted of a Case Diary…………………………………………………………….22
CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………….23
INTRODUCTION
Art 21 of the Constitution guarantees fundamental right to life and personal liberty. This article
of Constitution has been interpreted by the Judiciary with widest amplitude so as to include several
other rights such as right to food and shelter, and other rights and most importantly the right to
fair trial which includes the right to fair investigation. In Anbaizhagan’s case, the apex court
observed that, ‘if the criminal trial is not free and fair and not free from bias the judicial fairness
and the criminal justice system would be at stake, shaking the confidence of the public in the
system and woe would be the rule of law’,1 Trial should be fair to all concerned and ‘denial of
fair trial is as much an injustice to the accused as is to the victim and the society.2

1
AIR 2004 SC P.524.
2
Best Bakery Case, for details refer to AIR 2004 SC P.3114.

3
 The right to fair trial includes ‘Fair Investigation’, 3 Fair trial and fair investigation are
prerequisites to get justice which the parties deserve as per law, and one without the other cannot
yield to fair justice. A victim of a crime is entitled to fair investigation4 and if required the case
can be entrusted to a specialized agency like CBI and the courts have enough power to do complete
justice to the parties by giving appropriate directions.

INVESTIGATION WITH RESPECT TO THE COGNIZABLE OFFENCE & NON

COGNIZABLE OFFRNCEBY POLICE
The investigating authorities have been empowered to submit a report to the magistrate that there
is no evidence or reasonable grounds or suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to the
Magistrate and to release the accused from the custody on his executing a bond with or without
surety, as the police officer 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
for trial.4 The 41st report of the Indian Law Commission recommended that an accused person
must get a fair trial in accordance with the principles of natural justice, efforts must be made to
avoid delay in investigation and trial and the procedures should aim at ensuring fair deal to the
poorer sections of the society.6 The report under Sec 169 Cr Pc is referred to as a ‘closure report’.
The Magistrate however, can direct the police to make further investigation. The scope of the
power to direct further investigation when the police report states that there is no evidence to
proceed further, and really there is no evidence in the case at all, whether it would be an order
which can be justified or held valid needs examination.
In a case where the Director-General of Anti-Corruption Bureau gave an order and a report under
Sec 169 Cr Pc and it was a ‘speaking order’ containing reasons that there is absolutely no evidence
to prosecute the accused, the direction given by the Magistrate when the case itself does not
contain any evidence to proceed further, the direction of the court has to be viewed as bad in law.
This view finds support when there is a finding by Lokayukta that there is no material against the
accused. As the apex court ruled that a reference is made to the investigating officer or the courts
to Section 169 Cr Pc, the same has to be read as a reference to Sec 173 Cr Pc.5

3
Kalyani Baskar Vs. M.S.Sampoornam, (2007)2 SCC P.259.
4
See for details Sec 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
5
Sanjay Sinh Ram Rao Chavan Vs. Dattatray Gulab Rao Phalke (2015)3 SCC P.126 at P.133.

4
 The power of the court to take cognizance of a case, it is to examine whether there is sufficient
ground for taking judicial notice of the offence in order to initiate further proceedings. The apex
court examined this issue in Chief Enforcement Officer’s case8 and stated thus:-
“The expression ‘cognizance’ has not been defined in the code. But the word
‘cognizance’ is of indefinite import. It has no esoteric or mystic significance in criminal
law. It merely means ‘become aware of’ and when used with reference to a court or a
Judge, it connotes ‘to take notice of judicially’. It indicates the point when a court or a
Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating proceedings in
respect of such offences said to have been committed by someone”.
It was further elucidated thus:-6
i) Taking cognizance does not involve any formal action of any kind; ii) It occurs as soon as the
Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence; iii) It is prior to the
commencement of criminal proceedings; iv) It is an indispensable requisite for holding a valid
trial; v) Cognizance is taken of an offence and not an offender; vi) Whether the Magistrate has
taken cognizance of an offence or not depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, as no
universal application rule can be laid down; vii) Under Sec 190 of Cr Pc, it is the application of
the Judicial mind to the averments in the complaints that constitutes ‘cognizance’; viii) The
Magistrate has to consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding further and not
sufficient ground for conviction, as the sufficient ground for conviction can be considered only at
the trial; ix) If there is sufficient ground for proceedings, then the Magistrate can issue the process
under Sec 204 Cr Pc.7 The Magistrate has the undoubted discretion, to be judicially exercised in
determining whether there is a prime-facie case to take cognizance11 and x) Despite a report of
the police that no case is made out, the Magistrate can reject the report and take cognizance and
to order further investigation under Sec 173 (8) Cr Pc.
The main object for taking cognizance is to commence proceedings against the accused. At this
stage of cognizance, court is concerned with the involvement of the person and not of his
innocence. When there is no material to proceed, there is no point in taking cognizance and
proceeding further. The prosecution becomes futile exercise when the materials available do not
show an offence is committed. The apex court observed thus:-

6
Ibid, See para 20.
7
The expression Cr PC has been used for the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 throughout this study.

5
 i) Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set in
motion as a matter of course;8 ii) The process of criminal court shall not be permitted to be used
as a weapon of harassment. Once it is found that there is no material on record to connect an
accused with the crime, there is no meaning in prosecuting him. It would be a sheer waste of
public time and money to permit such proceedings to continue against such a person; 9 iii)
Unmerited and undeserved prosecution is an infringement of the guarantee under Art 21 of the
Constitution;10 and iv) No court can issue a positive direction to an authority to give sanction for
prosecution, when there is a police report that no case is made out to prosecute, unless the court
finds otherwise.11 Criminal law should not be used for vexatious prosecution. (In case where
sanction is required to prosecute such as for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act etc.
Thus, the fair investigation requires that the police should thoroughly examine the entire evidence
to find out whether any prime-facie is made out against the accused. If no case is made out, there
should be a closure report under Sec 169 which will be regarded as a report under Sec 173 Cr Pc.
It is again the duty of the Magistrate to find out whether there is any material on record to proceed
against the accused. If there is no material to proceed further, there is no point in taking
cognizance. In other words, the fair investigation and trials need the protection of an accused
from unwanted and vexatious prosecutions to avoid harassment to persons concerned. 12

INVESTIGATION BY POLICE (COGNIZABLE OFFENCE)

Any officer-in-charge of a police station may without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any
cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction-over the local area within the limits of such
station would have to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII Sec. 156(1). The
police can investigate even without a FIR, if a police officer has reason to suspect the commission
of a cognizable offence. F.I.R. is only a report about commission of an offence and it is not a
substantive evidence, as the police has yet to investigate the offence.12
This statutory right of the police to investigate cannot be interfered with or controlled 7-9 by the
judiciary.13 The court may or may not take action when a charge-sheet is preferred by the police
after investigation but its function does not begin until that stage. If, however, the FIR other

8
Pepsi Foods Ltd., Vst. Judicial Magistrate (1998)3 SCC P.749 Para 28.
9
State of Karnatak Vs. Muniswamy (1977)2 SCC P.699 At P.803 Para 8.
10
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, (1992) Supp (1) SCC P.222 at P.265 Para 60.
11
Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarath (1997)7 SCC P.622 at P.635 Para 32.

12
Sohan Lai v State of Punjab 2003 CrlJ 4569 (SC).
13
King v. Alitad AIR 1945 PC 18.

6
relevant materials do not prima facie disclose any cognizible offence or the proceedings are
initiated mate fide, the police in that case have no authority to investigate and the High Court in
the exercise of its inherent powers under Sec. 482 can stop and quash such an investigation [State
of U.P v R.K. Srivastava14]. But the High Court is not justified in quashing the investigation which
is still on its way.1516
A Magistrate has no authority to direct investigating officer to investigate any case in a particular
way [Jndrajit Mukherjee v Sate17]. But when an informant filed a protest against the investigating
officer for not recording a correct statement of the prosecution witness, it was held that the
investigation would become doubtful and the advantage or the same would go the accused 17.
Interference by the High Court in the investigation of offences is permissible only if
noninterference would result in of justice18.
Sec. 156(2) lays down that no proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall, at any stage,
be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered
under this section to investigate. Thus, an irregularity in investigation does not vitiate proceedings
or trial. In a wife-burning incident, the investigating officer committed grave irregularity in
omitting to send burnt clothes and other incriminating material for chemical examination, held
that the mere fact that the officer committed irregularity or illegality would not and does not cast
doubt on prosecution case [State of Rajasthan v Kishore AIR 1996 SC 3035]. When a case is made
out against all or any one of the accused persons the fact that investigation was defective in nature
cannot be made a basis for acquitting accused [State of UP v Hari Mohan20]. A trial cannot be set
aside unless the illegality in the investigation have brought about a miscarriage of justice. An
illegality committed in the course, of investigation does not affect the competence and the
jurisdiction of the court for trial19.

INVESTIGATION BEYOND TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

The latter part of sub-sec.(1) enables the police to invegigate cognizable offences committed
beyond their local jurisdiction (See Secs. 181-183, Chapter XIII.20 It is not within the jurisdiction

14
(1989) 4 SCC 59.
15
Jayant Vitamins Ltd. v Chaitanya Kumar AIR 1992 SC 1930.
16
-CrLI-3250-(Cal).
17
Jagdish Barhi v Stale of Bihar, 1990 Cr ti 1443 (SC).
18
See Eastern Spinning Mills v Rajiv Pocidar AIR SC,1668.
20
2001 CrLI 170 (SC).
19
Union of India v Prakash Hinduja, 2003 CrLI 3117 (SC).
20
Satvinder-Kaiir v State (1999) 8 SCC 728.

7
of the Investigative Agency to refrain itself from bolding a proper and complete investigation
merely upon arriving at a conclusion that the offences had been committed beyond its territorial
jurisdiction. The power vested in the Investigating Agency under this section does not restrict the
Tralsdiction of the Agency to investigate into a complaint even frit did noel-lave territorial
jurisdiction to do so.21
The Code has conferred power on the statutory authorities to direct transfer of an investigation
from one police station to another in the event if it is found that they do not have any jurisdiction
in the matter. The Court should not interfere iN the matter at an initial stage in regard: thereto. If
it is found that an investigation officer has conducted investigation who did territorial jurisdiction
matter, the same should be transferred by him to the police station having requisite jurisdiction
[Naresh K. Khatri v State of Gujarat (2008) 8 SCC 300].

ORDER OF INVESTIGATION BY MAGISTRATE {SEC. 156(3)}

According to Sec. 156(3), any Magistrate empowered under Sec 190 can order a officer-in-charge
of a police station to investigate an cognizable offence22, the words `any, Magistrate' refers to
Judicial Magistrate and not Executive Magistrate; the latter cannot direct investigation of a
cognizable offence23.
Whenever a Magistrate directs an investigation on a complaint the police has to register a
cognizable case treating the same as F.I.170nce such a direction is given under Sec. 156Q) the
police is required to investiate and on completion of it to submit a police report in accordance with
Sec. 173(2) on which a Magistrate may take cognizance under Sec. 190(1)(b).24 It is the duty- of
the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station to register an FIR when investigation under Sec. 156(3)
is directed by the Magistrate, even when the Magistrate explicitly does not say so. 25 Usually it is
for the police to register the case. However, on perusal of a report the Magistrate can order
registration of the case under Sec. 156(3).
The power to order investigation under Sec. 156(3) is different from the power to order
investigation under Sec. 202(1). The first is exercisable at the pre-cognizance stage, the second at
the post-cognizance stage (when the Magistrate is seized of the case i.e. issue of process to the

21
Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar v State of Gujarat AIR 2010 SC 715.
22
As per Sec. 190, a Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence upon receiving a complaint/ police report (chalan)
or upon his own knowledge.
23
Bateshwar Singh v State, 1992 CrLJ 2122 (Pat).
24
Madhubala v Suresh Kumar 1997 CrlJ 3757 (SC).
25
Mohd. Yousuf v Jahan (2006) 1 SCC 627.

8
accused). The legal prepositions regarding the order of investigation by a Magistrate under the
Secs. 156(3), 190 and 202 of the Code are:

(i) A. Magistrate can order investigation under Sec. 156(3) before taking cognizance under
Sec. 190, and where a Magistrate decides to take cognizance under the provisions of
Chapter XIV he is not entitled by law to order any investigation under Sec. 156(3).
(ii) Where the Magistrate chooses to take cognizance he can (a) peruse the complaint and if
there are sufficient grounds for proceeding he can issue process (warrant/ summons) to the
accused (b) postpone the issue of process and direct an inquiry by himself (c) postpone the
issue of process and direct an inquiry by any other person or an investigation by police
(Sec. 202).
(iii) In case the Magistrate after considering the statement of the complainant and the witnesses
or as a result of the investigation and inquiry ordered, is not satisfied, that there are
sufficient grounds for proceeding, he can dismiss the complaint.
(iv) Where a Magistrate orders investigation by the police (before taking cognizance) under
Sec. 156(3) and receives the report (chailan) thereon under Sec. 173, he can act on the
report and discharge the accused or issue the process against the accused or apply his mind
to complaint filed before him and take action under Sec. 190.

In such a case when cognizance is later taken by the Magistrate, it would be deemed to have been
taken on the police report and not on the original complaint. The question whether cognizance of
the offence has' been taken by the Magistrate on a complaint or on a police report, is of some
importance, because the trial procedure in respect of cases instituted on a police report is different
from that in other cases. This is particularly so in trial of warrant cases and trial before a court of
session.

i. The power conferred upon the Magistrate under Sec. 156(3) can be exercised by the
Magistrate even after submission of a report by the investigating officer under Sec. 173
which would mean that it would be open to the Magistrate not to accept the conclusion
of the investigating officer and direct further investigation.26
ii. If a Magistrate has acted upon a complaint under Sec. 202, it may not be possible for
him to send up the complaint to the police. under Sec. 156(3) for investigation.

26
State of Bihar v J. A. C Saldanha (1980) 1 SCC 554.

9
 However, in a case, after the investigation report under Sec. 156(3) and examination
under Sec. 202 the Magistrate again sent the complaint to the police. Held that such a
step could be taken by the Magistrate as he is entitled under Sec. 202 to order further.
investigation27.
The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Randhir Singh Rana v. Delhi28 in which it was
held that a Judicial Magistrate, after taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of police report
and appearance of accused cannot order further investigation. Here the accused was neither
summoned nor did he appear on being summoned. Hence the Magistrate's sending the complaint
again to the police was held proper.
It may be noted that ordinarily the Supreme Court does not order "reopening of an investigation"
after its completion unless there are special facts and circumstances.29

WHEN POLICE ITSELF IS A COMPLAINANT

In Bhagwan Singh v State of Rajasthan30, a police head constable lodged F.I.R. that bribe was
offered to him. He himself investigated the case. Held that the Investigation by the complainant
himself was an infirmity, which was bound to on the credibility of the prosecution case. In Megha
Singh v State of Haryana31, a head constable arrested the accused, recovered a pistol and cartriges
from his possessior, and lodged an F.I.R., yet he proceeded to examine witnesses. Held that the
complaint himself should not have proceeded for investigation.

STEPS INVOLVED IN INVESTIGATION

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT (F.I.R) [SEC. 154]
Sec. 154 deals with what is common known as a First Information Report (F.I.R) i.e. the first
information of a cognizable crime to the police. A first information report' means the information,
by whomsoever given, to the officer in charge of a police station in relation to the commission of
a cognizable, offence and which is first in point of time and on The strength of which, the.,
investigation-into, that a offence commenced.

27
Bharatiben Verma, 1998 CrLJ 17 (Karnt).
28
(1997) 1 SCC 361.
29
Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association, Chandigarh v State of Punjab AIR 1994 SC 10230.
30
AIR 1976 SC 985.
31
AIR 1995 Sc 2339.

10
Any person aware of the commission of any cognizable offence may give information to the police
and may, thereby set the criminal law in motion. The information so received shall be recorded in
such a form and manner as provided in Sec. 154, viz.
I. Information given orally to the officer-in-charge of the police station shall be
reduced to writing by the officer himself or under his direction;
II. Information given in writing, or if reduced to writing as aforesaid, the writing shall
be signed by the informant;
III. Information as taken down in writing shall be read over to the informant;
IV. The substance of the information shall then be entered by the police officer in a
book to be kept by such an officer in the form prescribed by the State Government
[Sec. 154(1)].
[2013 Amendment: In Sec. 154(1), the following provisos shall be inserted, namely: "Provided
that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under Secs.
326A/326B/354/354A/354B/354C/354D/376/376A/ 376B/376C/376D/376E or Sec. 509 of the
Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be
recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer:
Provided further that:
(a) in the event that the person against whom an offence under Secs. 354/354A/354B/
354C/354D/376/376A/376B/376C/376D/376E or Sec. 509 of the Indian Penal Code 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 videographed;

(c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under
clause (a) of sub-sec. (5A) of Sec. 164 as soon as possible.'"]

I. A copy of the information as recorded above shall be given forthwith, free of cost,
to the informant [Sec. 154(2)].
II. If the office-in-charge refuses to record the information, the aggrieved person may
send, in writing and by post, the substance of such information to the Superintendent

11
 of Police concerned. If the S. P. is satisfied about the commission of a cognizable
offence, he shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be
made by a subordinate police offrcer45 [Sec. 154(3)].
Sec. 154 has a three-fold object, namely:
(1) To inform the Magistrate and the District S. P. who are responsible for the peace and safety of
the district, of the offences reported at the police station;
(2) To make known to the judicial officers before whom the case is ultimately tried, what are the
facts given out immediately after the occurrence and on what materials the investigation
commenced; and
(3) To safeguard the accused against subsequent variations or additions.

The principal object of the F.I.R 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 bring to boo the
guilty.

WHEN A STATEMENT AMOUNTS TO F.I.R?

The question whether a statement is F.I.R. or is one made after the receipt of F.I.R. assumes
importance. It has held that first information is that information which is given to the police first
in point of of time (on the basis of which the investigation has been commenced) and not that
which the police may select and record as first information32.

However, any sort of information given first in point of time is not necessarily first information
within Sec. 154. It is necessary that such information must relate to a cognizable offence on the
face of it; and-not merely in the light of events. In a case, a person first made a statement that
certain woman named S had left her house last night with ornaments on her person". The next day
he made another statement that "S was sought to be located, but could not be found".
Investigations began; the day after, he made another statement " as S has not yet returned, I suspect
that M and L had taken her somewhere, and she might have been killed by them for the sake of
her ornaments". Held that it was really this third statement, which amounted to first information,
because it related to the commission of a cognizable offence.33

32
Bhutnath 7 CWN 345.
33
Mani Mohan, 35 CWN 623.

12
Sec 54 does not necessarily contemplate that only one information of a crime should be recorded
as F.I.R. but all information given to the police after investigation is started, may amount to first
information. Therefore, information lodged at two different police stations regarding the same
offence would both be admissible in evidence. However, there is a trend of court's acceptance of
F.I.R. as statements, which give circumstances of the crime with a view that the police officer
might proceed to investigate34. In this view the Supreme Court accepted as F.I.R. a statement
which the police officer recorded on the next day of occurrence though he visited the place on the
day of occurrence itself.35
If any oral information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is given to the police
officer, but the same is not recorded and the police officer proceeds to the scene of the offence
and there records statements of witnesses, none of such statements would amount to F.I.R.
Because in such a case the real F.I.R. is the unrecorded oral information given to the police officer
by the informant36.
The following points may be noted about a FIR.:
(1) It should be information of fact disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence.
(2) It should not be vague or indefinite, ‘If the allegations made in the F.I.R. are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute an offence, the criminal proceedings
instituted on the basis of such FIR. should be quashed'.39
(3) It may be given by anybody; the injured should not always be the first informant.
(4) It is not necessary that the offender or the witnesses should be named.

The following do not come within the purview of a F.I.R., namely:

(1) A statement given to the police after investigation have commenced.
(2) A statement made by a witness during investigation.
(3) A statement recorded by an officer-in-charge on the basis of his personal
knowledge.
(4) A report by a police officer informing his superior that he had been told of the
possible commission of a dacoity at some time in the future in Jagdish V State
[1992 CrLi 981 (M.P.)], held that where the message is transmitted between the
police officers inter se, such message can be said to be FIR only if its object was

34
Jagdish v State, 1992 CrLJ 981 (M.P.).
35
Pattad Amarappa v State of Karnataka, 1989 CrLJ 2167.
36
S.V Madar v State of Mysore (1980) 1 SCC 479.
39
State of UP v R.K. Srivastava (1989) 4 SCC 59.

13
 to narrate the circumstances of the crime with a view to initiating the
investigation therein.
(5) A complaint made orally or in writing to a Magistrate.

OMISSION IN THE F.I.R WHETHER JUSTIFIED?

The word "information" means something in the nature of a complaint or accusation, or, at least
information of a crime. The FIR should contain information regarding the circumstances of the
crime, the names of actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of
eyewitnesses. However, F.I.R. has to be appreciated keeping in mind the facts and circumstances
of each individual case. It is not an encyclopedia of the entire case. It is sufficient if it gives broad
spectrum of the incident37 Sometimes witnesses, do not think it proper to get it mentioned it the
F.L.R. But the omission of important facts in an FIR lodged by a witness to the occurrence must
be taken serious note of and would affect the veracity of the prosecution case.3839 FIR Is required
to contain basic features of the prosecution case, since it sets law into motion. In Superintendent
of Police, CBI v Tapan Kumar Singh42, it was held that F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia, which must
disclose all facts and details relating to the reported offences. Only a report lodged by the
informant about the commission of offence without any name is sufficient for the disclosure of
the commission of cognizable offence.
DELAY IN FILLING F.I.R.
The provisions as to an information report are enacted to obtain early information of alleged
criminal activity to record the circumstances before there is time for them to be forgotten or
embellished and the report can be put in evidence when the informant is examined if it is desired
to do so40. Criminal courts attach great importance to the lodging of prompt F.I.R. because the
same greatly diminishes the chances of false implication of accused as well as that of informant
being tutored. The prompt FIR goes a long way in establishing that the prosecution story was an
authentic and truthful one. Thus, the F.I.R. relies on spontaneity; deliberation and consultation are
inimical to it.
However, the mere fact that it has been lodged early does not rule out embellishment or falsehood
in every case41. At the same time, mere delay in lodging the report is not necessarily, as a matter

37
Manoj v State of Maharashtra IT 1999 (2) SC 58.
38
Shyamaghana v State 1987 CrLI 952 (Ori).
39
CrLJ' 2322 (SC).
40
Nazir Ahmed (1944) 47 Born LR 245.
41
Tam Chi AM 1970 SC 189 I.

14
of law, fatal to the prosecution; delay can be condoned if there is satisfactory explanation [Apren
Joseph v State ref Kerala42] viz. where the delay is due to its being lodged at a wrong police
station.

EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF F.I.R

The F.I.R. can be put in evidence (usually by the prosecution) when the informant is examined, if
it is desirable to do so. However, F.I.R. is not a piece of substantive evidence (evidence of facts
stated therein) and it cannot be preferred to the evidence given by the witness in court43, It can be
used only for limited purposes, like corroborating (under Sec. 157, Evidence Act) or contradicting
(cross-examination under Sec. 145, Evidence Act) the maker thereof, or to show that the
implication of the accused was not an after-thought. It can also be used under Sec. 32(1) and Sec.
8(j) and (k) of the Evidence Act.

CHARGESHEET
There are three kinds of reports to be made by police officers at three different stages of
investigation: (1) Sec. 157 requires a preliminary report from the officer-in-charge of a police
station to the Magistrate; (2) Sec. 168 requires reports from a subordinate police officer to the
officer-in-charge of the station; and (3) Sec. 173 requires a final report of the police officer as
soon as investigation is completed to the Magistrate.

Sec. 173(1) lays down that every investigation is required to be completed without unnecessary
delay. As soon as it is completed, a report is to be submitted to the Magistrate empowered to take
cognizance of the offence on a police report, in the form prescribed by the State Government
[subsec.(2)].
The police report submitted under this section is called "Completion/ Final Report". If the report
alleges the commission of a crime by an accused person, the report is commonly called the
"charge-sheet" or the. "challan". The police charge-sheet corresponds to the complaint of a private
individual on which criminal proceedings are initiated.
Submission of charge-sheet means that the preliminary investigation and preparation of the case
is over and the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence44.

42
AIR 1973 SC 1.
43
George AIR 1960 Ker 142.
44
Rama Shankar V State AIR 1956 All 525.

15
Until the Magistrate receives police report under Sec. 173, there can be no intervention by him in
his judicial capacity or as a court and until then no occasion can arise for the Magistrate to make
judicial order in connection with the police investigation [M.L. Sethi v R. P Kapur AIR 1967 SC
528] Submission of the report is absolutely necessary. Inordinate delay in submitting final report
may lead to the grievance that the investigation is carried on unfairly or with some ulterior
motive45.
The police report contains the facts and the conclusions drawn by the police therefrom.
Chargesheet is not a complete or accurate basis of the prosecution case [R.K. Dahnia v Delhi
Achnn 46 ]. The "Police report" (result of investigation under Chapter XII of the Code) is a,
conclusion that an investigating officer draws on the basis of materials collect during investigation
and such conclusion can only form the basis of a competent, court to take cognizance thereupon
under Sec. 190(1)(b) and to proceed with the case for trial, and it cannot rely on the investigation
or the result thereof47.
The Magistrate is expected to apply his judicial mind to the report and he is not bOund by the
conclusions drawn by the police. In Rupan Deol Bajaj v K.PS. Gill48 a senior police officer slapped
a senior lady IAS officer on her posterior at a party in the presence of an elite gathering and the
Magistrate accepted the final report submitted by the police in the case initiated by the lady officer
under Secs. 354/509, IPC, without giving reasons therefor, in spite of the objections made by the
complainant, the Supreme Court set aside the order and restored the case directing the Magistrate
to proceed with the case in accordance with Sec. 210, Cr. P. C.
Merely because two separate complaints had been lodged, did not mean that they could not be
clubbed together and one charge-sheet could not be filed49.

SUPPLIMENTARY REPORT ON FURTHER INVESTIGATION [Sec. I73(8)]

Nothing in Sec. 173 shall preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report
under sub-sec.(2) has been forwarded to the .Magistrate, and where upon such investigation, the
officer-in-charge of the police station obtains further evidence (oral or documentary), he shall
forward to the Magistrate a further report regarding such an evidence.50

45
R. P. Kapur v State of Punjab MR 1960 SC 866.
46
AIR 1962 SC 181.
47
Kaptan Singkv State of M; P. (1997) 4 Supreme 211.
48
(MR .1996 SC 309).
49
Muniappan v State of T.N. AIR 2010 SC 3718.
50
Sec. 173(8) Cr pc.

16
It may be noted that a power to direct further investigation has been conferred on the Magistrate
under Sec. 156(3), which can be exercised by him even after submission of a report by the police
officer. This provision does not in any way affect the power of the police officer to further
investigate the case even after submission of the report as provided in Sec. 173(8). However, a
Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of police report and after appearance
of the accused, cannot order further investigation51.
When a power under Sec. 173(8) is exercised, the court ordinarily should not interfere with the
statutory powers of the investigating agency. The court cannot issue directions to investigate the
case from a particular angle or by a particular agency52.
The underlying idea behind Sec. 173(8) is that if the investigating officer finds additional evidence
as to the guilt or innocence of the accused person it would be in the interests of justice to allow
such officer to make further investigation. While such an investigation is going on, the accused
can very well be remanded to custody under Sec. 167, as the matter will again be under
investigation qua that accused, when some evidence is collected by the police against him [State
v Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar]5354. It may be noted that Sec. 173(8) is only permissive and neither
the informant nor the accused can claim further investigation after the filing of the charge-sheet
as a matter of right [Shyanzcharan Dubey v State].57
Supplementary reports can be submitted to the Magistrate notwithstanding that the Magistrate has
taken cognizance of the offence upon a police report submitted under Sec. 173(2) [Ram Lai
Narang v State (Delhi Admn) 55 ]. Thus, further investigation by the police is not without
jurisdiction or contrary to law when trial in a Court of Session is continuing. However, it is
desirable that the police should inform the court and seek formal permission. Even when a trial is
in progress and a police report under Sec. 173(8) is received by a Magistrate, he has power to
issue process on the basis of the report against any person who is not already before him as an
accused56.
Even if the party was discharged on the first report, the police on its own can resort to further
investigation57. The fact that a second challan was put in later would not necessarily vitiate the

51
Randhir Singh Rana v State (1997) 1 SCC 361.
52
Popular Muthiah v State, Represented by Inspector of Police (2006) 7 SCC 296.
53
AIR 1997 SC 2494.
54
CrLJ 456 (A11).
55
AIR 1979 SC 1791.
56
N.N. Ponnappa v State, 1978 CrLJ 1551 (Karnt).
57
K. Karunakaran v State, 1997 CrLJ 3618 (Ker).

17
first and invalidate the proceedings taken before the second challan was submitted 58 . A
supplementary charge-sheet based on reconsideration of evidence already before investigating
agency is not permitted; further evidence should be obtained. However, further investigation is
the continuation of earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or re-investigation to be
started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. Sec. 173(8) clearly envisages a
further report and not fresh report5960.
In Satish Pandurang v State63, rape was committed on a girl of 5 years who complained to her
mother. During the investigation, mother's statement was recorded. Mother having died during
trial, the court permitted to record the victim's statement on being prayed by the prosecution. The
High Court held the order to be legally permissible under Sec. 173(8). The Magistrate could in
the exercise of power under Sec. 173(8) direct the special agencies like the C.B.I. to further
investigate the case in view of the objections raised by the appellant61.
Whether notice to the accused/ informant of further investigation is necessary- Sec. 173(8) lays
down that the provisions of sub-secs.(2)-(6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to a
supplementary report as they apply in, relation to a report under sub-sec.(2).
The issuance of a notice by the Magistrate to the informant at the time of consideration of the final
report is a must. In UPSC v S. Papaiah62, it was held that where the Magistrate after accepting the
final report submitted by C.B.I. passed an order to drop the proceedings and not to take
cognizance, without notice to the informant, the order of the Magistrate was illegal. If the Magist
rate decides to drop the case, after submission of a police report under Sec. 173, and there is a
protest petition (complaint) filed by the complainant the Magistrate is entitled to initiate action on
that petition63.

INQUEST REPORT
Sec. 174 provides that if any officer-in-charge of a police station (or some other police officer
special empowered by the State Government) receives information that a person has committed
suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or machinery, or ' by an accident, or had
died in such circumstances as raise a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed
an offence, he must immediately inform the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold

58
Tara Singh AIR 1951 SC 441.
59
K. Chandrashekhar v State of Kerala, 1998 CrLJ 2897 (SC).
60
CrLJ 1509 (Born).
61
UPSC v S. Papaiah, 1997 CrLJ 4636 (SC).
62
Id.
63
India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v State of Karnataka (1989) 2 SCC 1321.

18
inquest, and must proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is lying
(subsec.(1)].
Sec. 174(1) further lays down that the police officer must make an investigation in the presence
of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighborhood and draw up a report of the apparent
cause of death, describing the wounds, fractures, and other marks of injuries as are found on the
dead body and stating in what manner, or by what weapon such marks appear to have been
inflicted. Such a report shall be signed by the police officer and other persons, and sent
immediately to the District/Sub-Div. Magistrate [sub-sec.(2)]. A District/Sub-Div. Magistrate and
any other Executive Magistrate (specially empowered) are empowered to hold inquests
[subsec.(4)}.
The proceedings under Sec. 174 relating to inquest report have a very limited scope. The object is
to ascertain whether a person had died under the circumstances which were doubtful or an
unnatural death and if so what is the cause of death [Podda Narayana6465]. An Inquest Panchnama
is a report required to be made by the investigating officer with respect to the apparent cause of
death [Shaikh Ayub v State of Maharashtra,68]. There can be no inquiry under this section when
the dead body cannot be found or has been burnt or buried.
An inquest report need not contain the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who
assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted [Podda Narayan case, above].
Further, in an inquest under Sec.174, all the witnesses to an accident need not be examined or
their statements recorded because an inquest under this section is concerned with establishing the
cause of death and only evidence necessary to establish it need be brought 6667out.
Simply because the inquest report was not in a prescribed form, it did not lead to the conclusion
that the investigation was tainted or unfair. Non-mentioning of name of witness in inquest report
would be hardly relevant for impeaching statement of witness [Babu Singh v State of Punjab,70].
However; where the ocular witnesses were all injured and the inquest report did not mention their
names, it was held that there is a lapse or incompetence on the part of the investigating officer.68
Further, there is no requirement of law or any rule that inquest ‘panchnama’ should contain the
name of the accused [Shaikh Ayub, above]. However, in Ballaka Singh v State of Punjab69, the
name of four out of nine: accused was missing in the inquest report. No explanation was given for

64
AIR 1975 SC 1252.
65
CrL,J 1656 (SC).
66
Shakila Khader AIR 1975 SC 1324.
67
CrLJ 2503 (SC).
68
Amar Singh v State, 1996 CrLJ 3848 (Del).
69
AIR 1975 SC 1962.

19
the said omission. It was found that prosecution party was inimical to accused. The FIR was also
found to have been written after the inquest report was prepared. Held that the omission threw
doubt on complicity of the four accused.
Evidentiary value of Inquest Report - The statement under Sec. 174 cannot be used as a
substantive piece of evidence as such a statement would be within the inhibition of Sec. 162 which
provides inter al ia that no statement of any person, if recorded by a police officer in the course of
investigation shall be signed by the person making it. Thus, the statements under Sec. 174 can at
the most be used only as a previous statement to corroborate and contradict the person making it
at the trial [Ch:- Razik Ram AIR 1975 SC 667]. The statements contained in an inquest reportisto
the extent they relate to what the investigating officer saw and found are admissible but any
statement made therein on the basis of what he heard from others would be hit by Sec 162.70 Sec.
174(2) — It lays down that the report shall be signed by the investigating officer and other persons,
or by so many of them as concur therein. The signature refers to the signature of inhabitants in
whose presence the inquiry is held [Kuruvilla Joseph v State74].
Curbing Violence Against Women [Sec. 174(3)3 ]
Sec. 174(3), added by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983, to deal with the
increasing incidents of dowry deaths or cases of cruelty to married women by their in-laws.
Provision was made for inquest by Executive Magistrate for post-mortem in all cases where:
(i) a woman has, within 7 years of her marriage committed suicide, or
(ii) she died in circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has
committed an offence in relation to such woman (Sec. 498A, IPC), or
(iii) she has died within 7 years of her marriage and a relative of such woman had made a
request in this behalf, or
(iv) there is any doubt regarding the cause of death, or
(v) the police officer for any other reason considers it expedient so to do.
The police officer shall forward the body, with a view to its being examined, to the nearest civil
surgeon (or other qualified medical man appointed in this behalf by the State Government), if the
state of the weather and the distance admit of its being so forwarded without risk of such
putrefaction on the road as would render such examination useless. Sec. 174(3) gives discretion
to the police officer not to send the body for post-mortem examination only in one case, namely,
where there can be no doubt as to the cause of the death. This discretion, however, is to be

70
George v State, 1998 CrLJ 2034 (SC).
74
AIR 1952 SC 300.

20
exercised prudently and honestly71. The said discretion is taken away completely in cases falling
under clauses (i) (ii) and (iii) of Sec. 174(3).

POLICE DIARY
Sec. 172 deals with what is known as a "police diary", or a "special diary", or "case diary" or a
"station house report". It provides that every police officer making an investigation under this
Chapter shall, day by day, enter his proceedings of the investigation in a Diary, stating therein the
time at which 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 [sub-sec.(1)].
In view of 2008 Amendment to the Code, in Sec. 172, after sub-sec. (1), the following sub-secs.
shall be inserted, namely:-
"(.1-A) The statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation under Sec. 161
shall be inserted in the case diary.
(1-B) The diary referred to in sub-sec. (1) shall be a volume and duly paginated."
The object of this section is to enable the Magistrate to know what was the day-to-day information
by the police officer who was investigating the case and what were the lines of his investigation72.
Thus, the object of recording "case diaries" is to enable courts to check the method of investigation
by the police. Further, where the cases for prosecution and defence are both inadequate, the case
diary would help the court to discover for itself the material facts which can be brought to light
through examination of witnesses and get at the truth in the interests of justice [Habeeb Mohd. v
State of Hyderabad73].
The entries in a police diary should be made with promptness in sufficient details mentioning all
significant facts, in careful chronological order and with complete objectivity 74 . All police
officers-in-charge of a police station are required to keep a diary, and the magistrate of the district
is authorized to call for and inspect the same. It is a document under Sec. 91 that can be summoned
by the court de hors Sec. 172 [State of Kerala v Babu79]. Any criminal court can send for the
police diaries of a case under inquiry or trial in such a court, and may use such diaries, not as
evidence in the case, but to aid it in such an inquiry/ trial [Sec. 172(2)].

71
K. P. Rao (1975) 2 SCC 570.
72
Debendra Chandra v Emperor AIR 1934 Cal 458.
73
AIR 1954 SC 51.
74
Bhag-want Singh v Commissioner of Police AIR 1983 SC 826.
79
(1999) 4 SCC 621.

21
The diary can be used as aid in framing a charge against the accused person but it cannot be used
for founding the charge [Jyoti Jiban Ghosh v State75]. It was held in A.K. Roy v State of W.B76 that
the Magistrate cannot take cognizance or issue process against the accused on the material
contained in the case diary alone unless the fact contained in the report under Sec. 173 constitute
the offence. Sec. 172 does not deal with the recording of any statement made by witnesses.
Use Permitted of a Case Diary
The accused or his agents are not 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; but if they are used by the police
officer who made them to refresh his memory, or if the court uses them for the purposes of
contradicting such a police officer, the provisions of Sec. 161 or Sec. 145 of the Indian Evidence
Act shall apply [Sec. 172(3)].
The case diary, including every entry in it, is privileged from inspection by the accused or by his
pleader. The reason for this is that if the accused were entitled to inspect the, diary, the police
officer making the investigation would be tempted to omit from the diary, all information which
could prove to be injurious to the prosecution. Further, in the absence of such a restriction on the
accused person, the informer conveying information to the police would be deterred and that
would hamper speedy investigation77.

However, the accused is allowed to use the case diary under two circumstances: (i) if the police
officer, while giving evidence, refreshes his memory by referring to the case diary (permissible
under Sec. 159, Evidence Act), the accused is entitled to see the relevant or particular entries in
the diary and may use the same for cross-examining the police officer as provided in Sec. 161 of
the Evidence Act; (ii) if the court uses the diary for the purpose of contradicting such a police
officer in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 145 of Evidence Act.
The court is not bound to compel the police witness to look at the diary in order to refresh his
memory nor is the accused entitled to insist that he should do so78. In Kalpnath Rai v State84 held
that there is no doubt daily diary is a document, which is in constant use in police station. But no
prosecution is expected to produce such diaries as a matter of course in every prosecution case for
supporting the police version; if so, the function of the police station would be greatly impaired.

75
AIR 1964 Cal 59.
76
AIR 1962 Cal 135.
77
Law Commission, 41st Report.
78
Shamshul Kanwar v State of U.P. (1995) 4 SCC 430.
84
1998 CrLJ 369(SC).

22
Of course it is open to the defence to move the court for getting down such diaries if the defence
wants to make use of it.
If there is failure to keep a diary as required by Sec. 172, the same cannot have the effect of making
the evidence of such police officer inadmissible and what inference should be drawn in such a
situation depends upon the facts of each case79.

CONCLUSION
The investigating authorities have been empowered to submit a report to the magistrate that there
is no evidence or reasonable grounds or suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to the
Magistrate and to release the accused from the custody on his executing a bond with or without
surety, as the police officer 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
for trial. The 41st report of the Indian Law Commission recommended that an accused person must
get a fair trial in accordance with the principles of natural justice, efforts must be made to avoid
delay in investigation and trial and the procedures should aim at ensuring fair deal to the poorer
sections of the society. The report under Sec 169 Cr Pc is referred to as a ‘closure report’. The
Magistrate however, can direct the police to make further investigation. The scope of the power
to direct further investigation when the police report states that there is no evidence to proceed
further, and really there is no evidence in the case at all, whether it would be an order which can
be justified or held valid needs examination. The right to fair trial includes ‘Fair Investigation’,
Fair trial and fair investigation are pre-requisites to get justice which the parties deserve as per
law, and one without the other cannot yield to fair justice.

79
Niranjan Singh v State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 142.

23