 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 visitors directly came to the kitchen and clasped her from behind intending to outrage and bodice tea. 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 punishable 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, he asked her to go to the police station and gave a complaint. As the letter 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 reach the place of occurrence. By the Paras 113 and 14 of Setharkh, which is at the rate Manu Sharma was the state NCT of Delhi 2010 volume 6 SCC 1. Where the 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 or the transcribed information etc cannot be completed. The same cannot be treated as an FIR. By the Paras 33 to 37, Surajin Sarkar was the 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 set 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 lodge 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 Para 1 of Madhura State of Punjab 2001, AIR SC 2113 and Para 25 of Shashi Khan versus CPI AIR 2000 SC 351. So my question to you is as follow. I want to comply with the proviso to section 160 sub clause 1 of CRPC in this case. So I would also request kindly give what what is section 161 section 160 sub clause 1 of CRPC because a lot of young students are there they don't have the bare acts with them. See under section 161 a sub clause 1 of section 160 a police officer conducting an investigation may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. Now interpreting this provision, it has been held that even an accused will be a person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances case not only the prosecution witnesses. Even an accused will be covered by section 150. So when a police officer is conducting an investigation into a cognitive level, he can examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances case. Now, in the present case, the SHO was not justified in in directing the victim to go over to the police station to make a formal complaint because FIR stood registered when the moment he got the telephonic information regarding the complete facts. Therefore, investigation started. Now the argument of the SHO for for directing the victim to go over to the police station is that he according to him the victim does not suffer from any mental or physical disability as is contemplated under section 154 proviso section. And and if the victim if there was a the there was a offense committed under section 354 against a lady and if the lady was under a suffering from a mental or physical disability then section 154 proviso mandate that the SHO shall go over to the victim and along with a lady police or woman officer and record the first information from the victim. But here the SHO was clever enough to ascertain from the victim and her husband that she is not suffering from any mental or physical disability. Therefore, his justification in not going over to the victim to register the FIR statement is that first information statement is that victim was not suffering from any mental or physical disability. So I had no obligation to go over to the victim for registering the FIR. Then his subsequent is further justification is that this is not investigation. Whatever he she said over the telephone is not the FIR. So FIR is not registered without registering the FIR. How can there be investigation? Therefore, it is only during investigation that proviso to subsection 2 to section 16 is for during the course of investigation if the police officer wants to record the statement of the victim and if the victim is a lady or the person under the disability. A child or a decrepit decrepit old man. If in such persons of disability then only I need to go to the victim. Here the investigation is yet to come in. That was his argument wrong. He was wrong because with the receipt of the telephonic information regarding the commission of a cognizant law firm and FIR automatically stood recorded. And the investigation commenced and when investigation started then under even under section 161 CRPC, cross 1 CRPC, the proviso to section 161 CRPC, he was bound to go to the residence of the victim, between being a woman and record the first information statement and record and conduct investigation. For failure to do so, he had become liable to be prosecuted for an offense punishable under section 166 capital A of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, he was bound to comply with the proviso to section 160 1 CRPC and his justification for not complying with that on the ground that if the telephonic information was not FIR, he had not commenced the investigation and since the victim was not physically or mentally disabled, he had no obligation to go over to the victim for registering the FIR are all wrong and unsustainable. That is my take on the last question. Thank you.