FIR: A Critical Analysis of S.154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Table of Contents
Table of Cases…………………………………………………………………………….2
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….2
Research Methodology……………………………………………………………………5
Chapter I…………………………………………………………………………………..7
Distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable cases……………………………7
Investigation…………………………………………………………………………….8
The First Information Report…………………………………………………………..8
Object of recording the FIR……………………..……………………………………11
Chapter II…………………………………………………………………………..……13
Evidentiary Value of a usual FIR…………………………………………………….13
The Anonymous FIR…………………………………………………………………15
Implications of an Anonymous FIR…………………………………………………..17
The Situation in Real Life…………………………………………………………….18
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………..19
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………..20
Table of Cases
q Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar, (2002) 9 SCC 147.
q Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (1997) 1 SCC 283.
q Dharma Rama Bhagare v. The State of Maharashtra, (1973) 1 SCC 537.
q H.N. Rishibud v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196.
q Harkirat Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997 SCC (Cri) 1068.
q Mani v. State of Kerala, 1987 Cri LJ 1965 (Ker).
q Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC 188.
q Ram Chander v. State of Haryana, (1981) 3 SCC 191.
q Ramsinh Bavaji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, 1994 SCC (Cri) 609.
q Saroop Singh v. The State, AIR 1964 Punj 508.
q Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), 1999 SCC (Cri) 1503.
q Soma Bhai v. State of Gujarat, 1975 SCC (Cri) 515.
q Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1970 SCC (Cri) 328.
Table of Statutes
q The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
q The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Introduction
The Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 provides for a detailed procedure when it comes to dealing with criminal matters in our country. The criminal process in our country is divided into many phases. One such phase is the pre-trial stage. This is the stage where the role of the police is important. They investigate into any crime and collect evidence that is crucial to prosecute the accused. Without proper evidence, the court will not convict the accused. In a criminal trial, the facts lie scattered all over the record and are not readily available in one single document. They have to be therefore collected from a multitude of papers. The earliest version of the prosecution case is available in the First Information Report which is the trigger point of action.[i]
This paper focuses on the aspect of investigation. Though details are provided in next chapter, S.154 is the starting point of the investigation process in a cognizable case. There is usually a lot of controversy in determining when the actual investigation started as the Code of Criminal Procedure affords a certain protection to the accused.
Through this paper, the researcher wishes to examine a few concepts related with the report under S.154, which in popular parlance is called the First Information Report. S.154(1) of the new Code is an exact reproduction of the old code with the exception that two new provisions, namely, S.154(2) and 154(3) have been added.[ii]
The researcher, without wasting time of the reader, would now like to move to the core issues dealt with in this chapter.
Research Methodology
Aims and Objectives
The aim of this research paper is to acquaint the reader with what the First Information Report exactly is. The researcher has examined S.154 and a few allied provisions. He has focused on an important question as to whether an anonymous piece of information can constitute a FIR.
Chapterisation
This paper is divided into two chapters with sub-divisions therein to simply the reader’s efforts in understanding this paper.
Chapter I deals with the basics of an FIR without going into too much detail. Enough information has been provided so that the reader can understand the contents of the rest of the paper.
Chapter II deals with what the evidentiary value of the FIR is and whether it can be anonymous.
Research Questions
ü What is an FIR?
ü Is an FIR required in all types of cases?
ü If no, then why has there such a distinction been made?
ü What is the object of recording the FIR?
ü What is the evidentiary value of the FIR?
ü Can an FIR be anonymous?
ü What are the PROS and CONS of an anonymous FIR?
ü What is the situation in real life as regards whole concept of an anonymous FIR?
Method of Analysis
Descriptive: The researcher has made an attempt to look into the concept of the FIR with special emphasis on whether an FIR can be anonymous or not. To gain more knowledge on the subject he has interacted with Mr. Gangaiah, who is the Inspector and Station House Officer (SHO) of the Chandra Layout Police Station.
Analytical: The researcher has tried to closely study the interplay between the evidentiary value of the FIR and whether it can be anonymous or not.
Scope and Limitations
This paper tries to elucidate the concept of the FIR with special emphasis on whether an FIR can be anonymous or not. The researcher has not looked at many other issues pertaining to the FIR, eg. – delay in filing FIR, etc. Any errors or omissions that have inadvertently crept into this paper is solely the responsibility of the researcher.
Mode of Citation
A uniform mode of citation has been used through out this project.
Chapter I
Cognizable Cases, Investigation, and the Role of the Police:
The Importance of the First Information Report
At the very outset, it becomes imperative to discuss the meaning and scope of certain terms that are inextricably associated with so called ‘legal jargon’. The researcher feels that this is important as it would enable the reader to appreciate the contents of this paper and help understand the conclusions arrived at.
Distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable cases:
A non-cognizable case is one under which a police officer can arrest a person only with a warrant.[iii] Cases falling under this category are usually petty offences or those of a less serious character.
A cognizable case is one under which a police officer can arrest a person without a warrant.[iv] These types of cases are usually those of a serious nature. Hence, the police are vested with powers to arrest a person accused of such an offence without a warrant, and in doing so, a procedural safeguard that is given to a person is done away with. The possible rationale behind the removal of such a safeguard could be the fact that the police are expected to act quickly in such cases and put the accused behind bars immediately.
A very important distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable cases is the procedure for the commencement of investigation. In the former an FIR is essential whereas for the latter, the permission of a Magistrate is a must.[v] The FIR shall be discussed in detail elsewhere in this chapter. But for the moment it is necessary to note the significant difference as to how investigation commences in both the type of cases.
The First Schedule of the CrPC specifies what offences are cognizable and those which are non-cognizable.
Investigation:
The term ‘investigation’ has been used many times above. But one may wonder as to what exactly comes within the meaning of this term. This term has been defined in S.2(h) of the CrPC and includes all the activities carried out by a police officer or any other officer authorised by a magistrate that are associated with the collection of evidence.
The Supreme Court has had the opportunity to consider what are the activities that constitute an investigation.[vi] The Court said that an investigation consists of:
Proceeding to the spot;
Ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case;
Discovery and arrest of the suspected offender;
Collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence (this includes examination of witnesses and search and seizure);
Formation of an opinion as to whether material collected is enough to place accused on trial; and
Submission of Charge-Sheet under section 173 of the CrPC.
Therefore, it can be said that the process of investigation begins with the recording of the FIR and culminates with the filing of the charge-sheet.
The First Information Report:
As has been discussed above, there is a distinction between how an investigation commences in a cognizable case and a non-cognizable case. In simple terms, the First Information Report (FIR) is the basis on which an investigation begins in a cognizable case. The object of lodging the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstance inn which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used, as also the name of the eye-witnesses.[vii]
Chapter 12 of the CrPC deals with the power of the police to carry out investigation. The first provision appearing under this chapter is S.154. This is the material provision that we are concerned with. S.154 deals with information given to the police in cognizable cases and is divided into three distinct parts. It is on the basis of this initial information given to the police that investigation commences. This initial information is more commonly known as the FIR. It is very important to note that S.154 itself does not make use of the term ‘First Information Report’. However, one should not immediately come to the conclusion that this term has not been mentioned anywhere in the code. A couple of authors have stated that the term ‘First Information Report’ has not been used in the CrPC.[viii] The researcher differs from the view shared by these authors. Though S.154 does not make use of this term, one should read S.207(ii) of the CrPC. The conclusion that can be drawn by reading this section is that the report recorded under S.154 is the First Information Report. The FIR is a very important document and marks the beginning of the investigation. The object of the FIR is to set the criminal law machinery into motion.
Now, let us concentrate on the three distinct parts of S.154. The first part which corresponds to sub-section(1) of S.154 deals with the procedure involved in recording an FIR. An important component of this provision is that the information should be given to an officer in charge of a police station. S.2 (o) of the CrPC defines who an officer in charge of a police station is. The officer in charge should reduce the information so given into writing. The informant should also sign the FIR. If he does not then he can be punished under S.180 of the Indian Penal Code which provides for punishment if a person refuses to sign a document.
The second part which corresponds to sub-section(2) of S.154 mentions that a copy of the FIR should be given to the informant. The third part corresponds to sub-section(3) of S.154 which contains the procedure to be followed in case the officer in charge of a police station refuses to record the FIR.
Once, the FIR is recorded Sections 156 and 157 of the CrPC come into play. S.157 lays down the procedure for investigation. The police officer has to send a report to the appropriate Magistrate and take necessary steps for carrying out investigation. The Proviso to S.157(1) lays down a few exceptions from the procedure prescribed under S.157(1) but the officer in charge of the police station should record reasons for doing do as is laid down under S.157(2). If the officer in charge of the police station is desirous of going ahead with the investigation he can do so. S.156 gives the power to investigate cognizable cases without order of the Magistrate. S.156(2) is crucial as it empowers the police to carry out investigation in any area without the investigation being called into question.As has been authoritatively laid down by the Supreme Court, the Station House Officer has statutory authority under S.156 of the CrPC to investigate any cognizable offence for which an FIR is lodged.[ix] The commission of a cognizable offence can be reported at any police station, irrespective of whether it has jurisdiction over the place where the alleged offence was committed.[x] Once the investigation is over, the officer may forward the report to the appropriate magistrate. The logic being that at the time of investigation it might not be known where the offence has been committed. The researcher completely agrees with this line of reasoning.
The FIR must clearly show the commission of a cognizable offence. This is one of the prerequisites for a FIR. The researcher would like to elucidate this with the help of two illustrations.
Illustration 1:
X is the officer in charge of the police station. A comes to the police station and tells X that there is a lot of commotion in a certain market place. The officer enters this information into the Station House Diary. Based on this information given by A, the officer goes to the market place and finds out that a person has been killed. He questions an eye-witness and records his statement under S.154 of the CrPC. A question arises as to whether the information given by A should be treated as the FIR as it was the first in point of time. The question one should consider is whether the information so given discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If the answer is yes, then the information does constitute the FIR or else it is not. In the instant fact situation, the information does not show the commission of any cognizable offence at all. All that was said was that there was a commotion in the market place and nothing else. A mere commotion in the market place is not a cognizable offence.
Illustration 2:
X is the officer in charge of the police station. A comes to the police station and tells X that B, a friend of A, was stabbed to death by M at the residence of B. The police records this information in the Station House Diary. The SHO goes to the residence of B and verifies the information given by A. X finds the information to be substantially correct. In such a situation, the information given by A to X would constitute the FIR as it clearly shows the commission of a cognizable offence.
Illustration 1 is quite similar to the facts of the case in Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab.[xi] In that case however, there was a telephone call made to the police station stating that firing had taken place in a taxi stand. The Supreme Court held that this would not constitute the FIR as it was cryptic and anonymous and did not show the commission of a cognizable offence. The information must unmistakably relate to the commission of a cognizable offence. A cryptic piece of information received which does not disclose any authentic knowledge about the commission of a cognizable offence would not be sufficient to register an FIR.[xii]
Object of recording the FIR:
One may be compelled to ask at this stage why there is so much emphasis or attention given to the FIR, so long as the police act upon it. Determining when the FIR was actually recorded, according to the researcher, is of significant importance. Firstly, it signifies the beginning of the investigation stage and secondly, and more importantly, S.162 of the CrPC comes into play. S.162 is a protection afforded to the accused. No information obtained by the police during investigation, if reduced to writing, can be used as evidence in any trial. This is a protective mechanism that has been incorporated to benefit the accused.
The accused in a trial always tries to show that the information first received by the police is the FIR. Since the FIR marks the beginning of the investigation, the accused resorts to S.162 to prevent the admissibility of any statement recorded by the police subsequently. Invariably, this is the most common ground raised by the accused when the accused challenges the contents of the FIR. This causes the police to act with caution when they receive any information as to the possible commission of a cognizable offence. They go the scene of crime, ascertain more facts, find a suitable eye-witness and record his statement as the FIR. This approach of the police is not accused friendly, but indeed one may put forth convincing arguments for and against the adoption of such a method adopted by the police. Thus, determining as to what piece of information constitutes the FIR is in itself an extremely important task and has a significant bearing on the very trial itself.
Illustration:
X, the SHO, on the information received through a telephone call, goes to the scene of the crime and gathers certain information. He records the statement of B, an eyewitness, as the FIR. At the trial, M, the accused might raise the plea that the telephone call will constitute the FIR (provided it had clearly shown the commission of a cognizable offence) and the statement of B is therefore barred under S.162 as it was made to a police officer during the course of investigation.
Chapter II
The Anonymous FIR and its Evidentiary Value
The FIR is usually lodged by a person who is identifiable; i.e.- the FIR bears the name and signature of the informant. The issue the researcher seeks to examine in this chapter is whether an FIR can be anonymous and would be its evidentiary value. The researcher was not able to come across a single Supreme Court ruling that allows for the recording of an anonymous FIR.
Evidentiary Value of a usual FIR:
One may ask as to what other purpose does the FIR serve other than marking the beginning of the investigation stage. Can an FIR be used to convict the accused? Logically speaking it should not form the sole basis of the conviction of the accused because the FIR only allows for the police to begin investigating. The evidentiary value of the FIR is far greater than that of any other statement recorded by the police during the course of investigation.[xiii]
An FIR is admissible as evidence in a trial. But how does the prosecution benefit by producing the FIR as evidence? Or does it actually benefit the accused by allowing him an opportunity to cross-examine the maker of the FIR. The prosecution has to always show that the FIR was properly recorded so as to show the credibility of their case and to prevent the Court from drawing an adverse inference. The accused on the other hand tries to cross-examine the maker of the FIR and tries to show some contradiction in the version of the maker in the FIR and that before Court. He tries to cast a doubt on the correctness of the FIR.
The evidentiary value of the FIR has been discussed by the Supreme Court in many a times. It is not necessary to discuss all of them in this paper. However, the researcher would like to make a reference to a few such decisions. In 1973, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court had discussed the evidentiary value of an FIR.[xiv] In this case, the contents of the FIR were at variance with the testimony of other witnesses in Court. The submission of the appellant before the Supreme Court was that because of this the prosecution evidence must be considered unreliable and hence, cannot form a safe basis for holding the appellant guilty. The Court said that:
“The FIR is never treated as a substantive piece of evidence. It can only be used to contradict or corroborate its maker when he appears in Court as a witness.”[xv] (emphasis supplied)
The Court further held that an FIR cannot be used for contradicting or discrediting other witnesses who do not have any desire to spare the real culprit. An important conclusion can be arrived at if one reads the judgment of the Court in this case which is that even if the maker of the FIR contradicts himself, the prosecution case still stands and the testimony of other witnesses can be relied upon to convict the accused.
In another case that arose before the Supreme Court, the counsel for the respondents urged that the contents of the FIR could be used to corroborate the testimony of other eye-witnesses.[xvi] They intended to do so by invoking S.11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). However, the Court rejected their argument and said that the contents of the FIR can be used only to contradict or corroborate the maker of the FIR and of nobody else.
As recent as 2002, a division bench of the Supreme Court has held that the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to corroborate the statement of the maker under S.161 of the IEA or to contradict him under S.145 of that Act. It cannot be used as against the maker at the trial if he himself becomes an accused nor to corroborate or contradict other witnesses.[xvii]
To summarise the preceding paragraphs, it can be said that the FIR can only be used to corroborate or contradict the maker of the FIR. If the maker of the FIR happens to be the accused himself, then his conduct of lodging the FIR becomes relevant under S.8 of the IEA. However the contents of the FIR cannot be used against him.
The Anonymous FIR:
An anonymous FIR necessarily implies that the FIR is made by some person whom the SHO does not know and cannot see. An anonymous FIR can be made over the telephone, via telegram, via SMS or via the Internet. Before actually putting forward his own views, the researcher would like to discuss case law. However, all these cases invariably deal with telephone calls.
An interesting case came up before the Punjab High Court in 1964.[xviii] In the instant case, the police had received an anonymous telephone call, which conveyed that the deceased had been injured by two persons and had run away. Based on this the police went to the scene of crime and recorded the statement of an eye-witness as the FIR. The accused/appellant sought to show that the telephone call constituted the FIR and hence, the statement of the eye-witness was barred by S.162 of the CrPC. The High Court cited many High Court decisions and said that a telephonic message cannot constitute an FIR. It further said that the identity of the assailants was not disclosed and was therefore cryptic. The Court said that the statement of the eye-witness would be the FIR.
The researcher would like to differ from the view expressed by the court in the abovementioned case. He feels that an FIR need not necessarily name the assailants as that is the very purpose for which the investigation takes place. If the informant is expected to mention everything in his information then what is the whole purpose of investigation. Secondly, if the telephone call does show the commission of a cognizable offence, as in the above fact situation, then why should it not be treated as the FIR? The researcher feels that is should be treated as the FIR because but for the telephone call, the police would not have proceeded to the scene of crime.
The abovementioned case was cited with approval by the Supreme Court in the Tapinder Singh Case.[xix] It is not necessary to go into the facts of this case as they have already been discussed in the previous chapter. What is relevant for the present discussion is that the court said that telephone call to the police station was cryptic and anonymous. It was cryptic because it did not show the commission of a cognizable offence. Would that mean then that if a telephone call were anonymous but not cryptic, it would then constitute an FIR. The Court somehow overlooked this point or did not find it necessary to comment on this aspect.
Once again in 1975, when one of the questions before the Supreme Court in a case was whether the telephone call of the P.S.I. would constitute the FIR or not, the Court just said that since it was too cryptic, it would not constitute the FIR.[xx] However, in that case the telephone call was not anonymous and therefore the Court might have been justified in expressing its view on that point.
However, the Supreme Court did answer this point in 1994.[xxi] It said that if a telephone call is cryptic it would not constitute the FIR. Because the purpose of such a telephone call is to ask the police to proceed to the crime scene and ascertain a few more facts before recording the FIR. But interestingly, the Court went a step ahead and said that if the telephone call shows the commission of a cognizable and based on that information the police officer proceeds to the crime scene, any statement made by a witness subsequently to him would be struck by S.162 of the CrPC. Therefore, by implication, the Court has held that the telephone call constitutes an FIR.
However, the researcher feels that a particular judgment of the Kerala High Court in 1987, even if given a narrow interpretation, would allow anonymous telephone calls to be considered as an FIR, provided it shows the commission of a cognizable offence.[xxii] The Court said:
“A First Information Report which sets the process of law in motion can come from any quarters, even anonymous sources”.[xxiii] (emphasis supplied)
Consequently, the researcher opines that an anonymous telegram, telephone call or e-mail would constitute an FIR if it clearly shows the commission of a cognizable offence. The researcher would now like to move on to the implications that might arise out of an anonymous telephone call.
Implications of an Anonymous FIR:
Let us assume an anonymous telephone call has been recorded as the FIR by the police. This has its own implications on the police as well as the accused. The police might be put at a disadvantageous position. The telephone call might have disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence but the police can never be sure that the event has happened. Once they go to the crime scene, they find a few further facts from eye-witnesses but they cannot produce the statements of such witnesses before the Court as their statement will be barred by S.162 of the CrPC. This will prove beneficial to the accused. Another disadvantage is that the contents of the telephone call when written down by the police cannot be read over back again to the informant. The police would not be able to verify the contents of the FIR that it has recorded. This would happen in cases where the informant makes a call to the police but disconnects before the information recorded is read over to him. But to overcome this, the police can have a recording device that tapes the whole telephone call.
But allowing anonymous phone calls to constitute an FIR will also prove beneficial to the police. Sometimes, according to Mr. Gangaiah (SHO, Chandra Layout Police Station), people do not wish to lodge a complaint with the police. In such cases, the FIR is lodged by the police. Usually, the Court does not much importance to an FIR recorded by the police themselves. Therefore, by recognizing an anonymous FIR, people who are afraid of criminals can still give information to the police without any fear whatsoever as their identity is not revealed.
An anonymous FIR might also be a disadvantage to the accused in a trial. When an FIR is anonymous, it is implied that the maker will not testify in Court. Consequently, the accused looses his very valuable right of cross-examination against the maker of the FIR. However, after Dharma Rama Bhagare’s case, even if the maker contradicts himself, the prosecution might still succeed if they have other reliable evidence. So, it may be said that the accused is not put to a big hardship except for the fact that he looses his very valuable right to cross-examine the maker of the FIR. He can still cross-examine the other witnesses.
In another case before the Supreme Court, where the informant had died after lodging the FIR, the Court said that since such a person cannot come to court to testify, he cannot be contradicted or corroborated. Therefore reliance cannot be placed on the FIR. However, if there is other reliable evidence or there are other witnesses, the court might still convict the accused.[xxiv]
The Situation in Real Life:
Mr. Gangaiah said that the situation in real life is much difference. He said that they never record an anonymous FIR. If they do get an anonymous call, he said that the officer in charge records the information and signs it, and thereby becomes the informant himself. Or sometimes they proceed to the crime scene and record the information of an eye-witness as the FIR. He said that this is the regular practice, even if the telephone call does show the commission of a cognizable offence.
Conclusion
The FIR is an important document as it allows the police to commence investigation in a cognizable case and also establishes the period from which the provisions of S.162 of the CrPC come into play.
The Court usually tries to see whether there existed an FIR based on which the police began investigation. Any irregularity in the trial does not vitiate the trail by itself, but the Court does draw an adverse inference from it.
Coming to the issue of allowing anonymous FIR’s, the researcher feels that a couple of the decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court settle this matter conclusively. An anonymous FIR can definitely be allowed. If the call shows the commission of a cognizable offence and the police begin investigation, then the telephone call will definitely be the FIR.
However, in reality, the police do not like to record an anonymous call due to reasons mentioned in the paper. Moreover, the police themselves are aware of S.162 of the CrPC and thereby like to record a statement, complete in facts, as the FIR.
The only thing that the researcher would like to add is that if the police were to begin recording information from an anonymous source as the FIR, then the accused would definitely be at an advantage as that would mean the operation of S.162 of the CrPC would come into play that much earlier. This is inspite of the fact that he looses the right to cross-examine the maker of the FIR.
Bibliography
Books:
q Dhirendra Pal Varshini, How to Frame a Charge under the Penal Code and Other Criminal Acts, 2nd Edn., Eastern Book Co., Lucknow, 1994.
q N.D. Basu, The Code of Criminal Procedure, S.K. Bose Ed., Vol.1, 9th Edn., Ashoka Law House, New Delhi, 2001.
q P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Code of Criminal Procedure, Justice J.K. Mathur Ed., Vol.2, 7th Edn., Modern Publishers (India), Lucknow, 2000.
q R. Nagaratnam, Criminal Procedure: Principles and Precedents, Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi, 1990.
q R.V. Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure, K.N. Chandrasekharan Pillai Ed., 4th Edn., Eastern Book Co., Lucknow, 2001.
q Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s The Code of Criminal Procedure, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud Ed., 15th Edn., Wadhwa and Co., Nagpur, 1997.
[i] Dhirendra Pal Varshini, How to Frame a Charge under the Penal Code and Other Criminal Acts, 2nd Edn., Eastern Book Co., Lucknow, 1994, p.2.
[ii] N.D. Basu, The Code of Criminal Procedure, S.K. Bose Ed., Vol.1, 9th Edn., Ashoka Law House, New Delhi, 2001, p.742.
[iii] See Section 2(l) of the CrPC for the meaning of the term non-cognizable cases or non-cognizable offences.
[iv] See Section 2(c) of the CrPC for the meaning of the term cognizable cases or cognizable offences.
[v] See Section 155 of the CrPC to know about how an investigation commences in a non-cognizable case.
[vi] H.N. Rishibud v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196.
[vii] Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC 188.
[viii] P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Code of Criminal Procedure, Justice J.K. Mathur Ed., Vol.2, 7th Edn., Modern Publishers (India), Lucknow, 2000, p.1350, and, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s The Code of Criminal Procedure, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud Ed., 15th Edn., Wadhwa and Co., Nagpur, 1997, p.209.
[ix] Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), 1999 SCC (Cri) 1503.
[x] R. Nagaratnam, Criminal Procedure: Principles and Precedents, Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi, 1990, p.22.
[xi] 1970 SCC (Cri) 328.
[xii] Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (1997) 1 SCC 283.
[xiii] R.V. Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure, K.N. Chandrasekharan Pillai Ed., 4th Edn., Eastern Book Co., Lucknow, 2001, p.119.
[xiv] Dharma Rama Bhagare v. The State of Maharashtra, (1973) 1 SCC 537.
[xv] Ibid., at Para.7.
[xvi] Ram Chander v. State of Haryana, (1981) 3 SCC 191.
[xvii] Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar, (2002) 9 SCC 147.
[xviii] Saroop Singh v. The State, AIR 1964 Punj 508.
[xix] Supra, note 11.
[xx] Soma Bhai v. State of Gujarat, 1975 SCC (Cri) 515.
[xxi] Ramsinh Bavaji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, 1994 SCC (Cri) 609.
[xxii] Mani v. State of Kerala, 1987 Cri LJ 1965 (Ker).
[xxiii] Ibid., at Para.4.
[xxiv] Harkirat Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997 SCC (Cri) 1068.
Source: http://legalsutra.org/
FIR: A Critical Analysis of S.154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
