 Good evening, friends. Amongst us we have Justice Veeram Kumar and as usual we will be taking the session in an interactive form. And I will read the question and Justice Veeram Kumar will explain the same issues in a more explicit manner. As usual people love to understand from him and that's why on our request which we receive on WhatsApp as well as on the emails etc. We keep on requesting and he is always willing to see to that. The question is at about 11 a.m. on a Sunday while a lady aged 27 years was alone in her house, a person aged about 38 years and who claimed to be a friend of her husband, came asking for her husband. She told the person that her husband had gone to the market to purchase some vegetables and fish and would return in half an hour. She asked the visitor to be seated and said that she would make some tea in the meanwhile. While she was busy making the tea, the visitor stilledly came to the kitchen and clashed her from behind intending to outrage her honesty. With a loud protest she shook herself free and pushed the intruder who immediately left the house. She narrated her bitter experience to her husband who told her that although he knew the visitor, the latter was not his friend. He asked her to call the police and make a complaint. She called the officer in charge of the police station, SHO for short and narrated the entire incident amounting to an offense on a ship under section 354. The SHO asked her whether she had any physical or mental disability and she as well as her husband replied in a negative. Even though the SHO was convinced about the admission of the offense and he made a routine entry in the general dial, he read a book about the telephonic information, he asked her to go to the police station and gave a complaint. As the victim was disinclined to do so, she sent a letter by post to the district superintendent of police, DSP for short, narrating the whole incident and stating that the contact of the SHO amounted to refusal to record her information requested the DSP to investigate the case. On receipt of the letter, the DSP asked for an explanation from the SHO on the following lines. Why did not the SHO treat the telephonic information as one received under section 154 CRPC? Why did not the SHO treat the telephonic information as one received under section 154 CRPC? Why did instead of asking the victim to go to the police station and make a complaint, the SHO himself did not go to the police, go to the house of the victim and do the needful in view of the proviso to section 160 sub clause 1 CRPC? On the advice taken from the assistant public prosecutor APP for short, the SHO gave the following reply. Any information given on telephone to the police is not for the purpose of lodging an FIR, but to request the police to read the place of occurrence. By Paris, 113 and 14, of Sethart, which is at the rate Manu Sharma, was a state NCT of Delhi, 2010 volume 6 SCC-1, where a telephonic information is received from an unknown person, since the procedural formalities such as reducing the information into writing and reading it over to the informant and obtaining his or her signatures on the transcribed information etc. cannot be completed. The same cannot be treated as an FIR. By Paris, 33 to 37, Surajin Sarkar was a state of West Bengal, 2013 volume 2 SCC-146. It is only if the victim lady was mentally or physically disabled, but temporarily or permanently, should the SHO go to her presence and record the information as mandated by clause A of the second proviso to section 154-1 CRPC. Here he had ascertained from the victim that she had no such disability and she should have gone to the police station and lodged the first information report statement. FIR for short, the proviso to section 161 sub clause 1 CRPC exempting certain categories of symptoms from being required to attend the police station is applicable only during the course of investigation. Here since the FIR has not been registered, there could not be any investigation. The Supreme Court has ruled that registration of an FIR is a condition precedent for commencement of an investigation by the Paira-1 of Mindronga State of Punjab, 2001, AIR SC-2113. At Paira-25 of Shashi Khan was a CPI, AIR 2000 SC-351. So my questions to you is as follows. We have made the proposition. The second question is what not the SHO bound to treat the telephonic information as an FIR? Yes. Now in the particular case, the SHO did not treat the telephonic information as an FIR. And he ultimately when an explanation was sought by the DSB, he got the opinion of the assistant public prosecutor and gave his answer. Now actually on receipt of telephonic information, which was a complete information and not a cryptic information and which was duly entered by him in the general diary that is the daily register book. The SHO was bound to enter the same in the FIR book also and treat the same as the first information statement and record it as a first information statement. This is the view taken by the same Supreme Court in Ram Singh Bawali Bawaji Jaadeja versus state of Gujarat, 1994, Volume 2 SCC 685. The judges are K. J. Chandran Reddy and N. P. Singh. N. P. Singh being the author. Again in Sunil Kumar versus state of Madhya Pradesh, a year 1997 Supreme Court 940 corresponding to 1997, Volume 10 SCC 570, Justice M. K. Mukherjee, other and R. N. Kripal. Again Ashok Dabbarma versus state of Tripura, 2014, Volume 4 SCC 747, Justice K. S. P. Radhakrishan, the other and Vikramajit Sen. Again the constitutional bench decision in Lalitha Kumari versus state of UP, a year 2014 Supreme Court 187 corresponding to 2014, Volume 2 SCC page 1. 5 judges, author of the judgment is Justice P. Sadashivam. Now in all these cases the Supreme Court has held that when the first information telephone, when the information regarding the commission of a cognizable offense is received through telephone and if it is a complete information, not a cryptic information, the officer is bound to treat it as the FIR, make an entry in the general diary, general diary and also in the FIR register and he is to treat it as the FIR, he has to register it as the FIR, he has no other alternative. So that is the answer to this question. So he is bound to treat it as the FIR, especially when he made an entry in the general diary. That's my answer.