 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 commission of the offense and he made a routine entry in the general dial. Daily diary book about the telephonic information she asked her to go to the police station and give a complaint. As the victim was decent lying 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 the 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 release the police of occurrence. Pied Paras 113 and 14 of Siddharth, which is at the rate Manu Sharma was a state NCT of Delhi 2010 volume 6 SCC1. We are 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. Pied Paras 33 to 37 Surajit Sarkar was a state of West Bengal 2013 volume 2 SCC146. 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 set clause A of the second proviso to section 154 one CRPC. Here he had ascertained from the victim that she had no such disability and she should have gone to the police station and lodge the first information report statement. FIR for short the proviso to section 161 sub clause one CRPC exempting certain categories of victims from being required to attend the police station is applicable only during the course of investigation. Here since the FIR has been 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. Pied Paras one of Mahindra was a state of Punjab 2001 AIA SC2113. At Paras 25 of Shashi Khan was a CPI. AIA 2000 SC 351. Sub my question to you is as follows. The registration of an FIR is a condition precedent for the commencement of an investigation through in all cases. Now the SHO when the DSP sought for an explanation from the SHO. SHO after taking legal opinions of the APP cited two decisions of the Supreme Court. Where in the Supreme Court has held that registration of an FIR is a condition precedent for the commencement of investigation. In a way in fact the Supreme Court has held in those two decisions. That is AIA 2001 Supreme Court 2113 and AIA 2007 Supreme Court 351. That the registration of an FIR is the Saini Kwanol for the commencement of investigation. I would respectfully say that it is only the ordinary rule. Registration unless the FIR is registered there cannot be an investigation is the ordinary rule. But there can be extraordinary situation where investigation can precede the registration of an FIR. In fact, there's a beautiful decision by Porter, Lord Porter in the famous Emperor versus Khoja Nasir Ahmad. AIA 1945 Privy Council page 18 where Lord Porter has observed as follows. But in any case the receipt and recording of an information report is not a condition precedent to the setting in motion of a criminal investigation. No doubt in the great majority of cases criminal prosecutions are undertaken as a result of information received and recorded in this way. But their lordships see no reason why the police if in possession through their own knowledge or by means of credible though informal intelligence. Which genuinely leads them to the belief that cognizable offense has been committed should not of their own motion undertake an investigation into the truth of the matter alleged. Section 157 CRP of the Code of Criminal Procedure when directing that a police officer who has reason to suspect from information or otherwise. That an offense which is which is about to investigate under section 156 has been committed shall proceed to investigate the facts and circumstances support this view. In fact, as you all know, when a information regarding the commission of a cognizable offense is received by the officer in charge of a police station that is the SHO is bound to register a crime. But if you read section 157, the police office the SHO is bound to investigate in a case where he got information that is information under section 154 or otherwise. That otherwise takes in all those cases where even without any information he is bound to start comments investigation. For example, a police officer is going on petrol duty in his police jeep with the team of police officers on the way he comes across a person committing a cognizable offense. Nobody informs him. Nobody gives information under section 154. So this is a situation where you on information or otherwise is otherwise clause under section 157 is attracted in such case. Likewise, when a telephonic information is obtained regarding the commission of a cognizable offense, it is actually it is an information under section 154 itself. He is bound to register an FIR and comments investigation. As a matter of fact, once that information is received and it is recorded in the general diary, it is there in a FIR registered and the investigation has started. In fact, the the two decisions is only ordinary rule that come the registration of a crime is sign a quantum for the commencement of investigation, not always. There can be situations where the investigation can precede the registration of FIR. You may refer to state of UP versus Bhagavad Kishore Joshi. A.I.R. 1964 Supreme Court 2213 judges. K.S.Uparav is the gives the leading judgment and there is a supporting judgment by justice or Madhulkar. Now, again in paragraph 11 of A.Joseph Alia's current Kunju-Kunju versus state of Kerala. A.I.R. 1973 Supreme Court page 1 corresponding to 1973 volume 3 SCC 114. Again three judges. Justice J.M. Shelath acting Chief Justice I.D. Dua and H.R. Khanna J. I.D. Dua being the author of the judgment. Then Chandrababu versus state of sub inspector police. 1980 to K.L.T. 529. Justice K.T. Thomas as his lordship boss of the Kerala I.K.O. The beautiful decision where an officer, a police officer gets information through telephone. He swings into action, goes and catches hold of the culprit committing a cognizable offense and he conducts some investigation also. Then with the booty and the accused, he goes to the police station and registers a crime. When the case came up for trial, it was argued that whatever he did prior to the registration of the crime was not investigation. Justice Thomas said no. In fact, following that Bhagavan Kishore Jyoti. A.I.R. 1954 Supreme Court 221. No, there can be situations where investigation can precede the formal registration of a crime. Again in Siddhartha Vasishti versus Manu Sharma versus state of Delhi. N.C.T. of Delhi. A.I.R. 2010 Supreme Court 2352. Paragraph 36 may kindly be seen. Paragraph 36. Where their lordships refer to Bhagavan Kishore Jyoti etc. to hold that. There can be situations where investigation can precede the formal registration of a crime. Now coming to the facts of the present case. The moment a victim informed the S.H.O. through telephone regarding the commission of a cognizable offense and which information was duly entered by him in the general diary, it amounted to an F.I.R. and even without registering the same, the stage was not, the stage of investigation had commenced and the S.H.O. was not justified in directing the victim to go over to the police station and give a formal complaint. On the contrary, the S.H.O. was obliged to go to the residence of the victim that we will consider during the, while discussing the next problem. Next question. That is my take on this question.