First Information Report

WhatisF.I.R:

F.I.R mean first information report regarding an occurrence to the police authorities which
can be given under section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code1898 orally or in writing signed by
the person given such information.
Purpose:
Purpose of F.I.R is set criminal law in motion and to obtain first hand information of
occurrence in order to exclude possibility of fabrication of story or consultation or complainant
has time to device or contrives any thing to his advantage and to the disadvantage of others.
Registration of F.I.R.
Section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code dealt with the registration of F.I.R. Under this
section a statutory duty has been cast upon the Office Incharge of Police Station to enter
information regarding the commission of cognizable offence in a register the form of which is
prescribed by the Provincial Government which is known as F.I.R parlance. Station House Officer
is under the legal obligation to register a F.I.R whenever allegations regarding commission of
cognizable offence are leveled before him. Use of word “shall” in section 154 Cr.P.C indicates
that it does not give discretionary power to the police officer to delay or refuse registration and
police officer has no other option but to proceed with the registration of crime report without
any delay.
F.I.R when loses its importance:
Once the maker of F.I.R is examined in Court then F.I.R. loses its that much importance and
is reduced to the position to the extract to be used only to corroborate as provided under Article
153 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 or contradict its maker in the manner as required under Article
140, Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984. It is neither a substantial piece of evidence nor conviction can be
base on it. [2011SCMR45].
Sections 154 and 157 Cr.P.C.-
Distinction. Provisions of Sections 154 and 157 Cr.P.C. are different in scope. Section 154
Cr.P.C is applicable to a case where the F.I.R is given by some other person and the action is not
suo motu by the Officer-incharge of a Police Station and makes it incumbent upon such officer
to reduce in writing the information give or get it so reduced and then to enter it in the book
kept for the purpose. Provisions of S. 157 Cr.P.C are applicable only to investigation and not to
the recording of the F.I.R [ 2011 P.Cr.L.J. 1826].
Cognizable cases.
If oral information regarding commission of a cognizable offence was communicated to an
officer incharge of Police Station, same would be reduced into writing by him; or under his
direction and be read over to the informant. No line of distinction and demarcation had been
made in S. 154 Cr.P.C., putting embargo to lay information before police, even after the
registration of first report regarding the same occurrence. [2011 P.Cr.L.J 1660].
Non-cognizable offence.
For recording of information of commission of non-cognizable offence another book is
prescribed known as “Roznamcha” or “Station Diary” in which information relating to
commission of non-cognizable offence is recorded and generally police would not initiate any
action and the complaint or informant after being given a copy of the report so entered is sent
away. If SHO deems it fit to initiate investigation then under subsection (2) of S.155 police
officer had to obtain order from the Magistrate and if any arrest is to be effected then it could
only be made after obtaining warrant of arrest from the Magistrate under S.155(3), Cr.P.C [2005
YLR 1879]
Sealing of F.I.R.
Police u/s 157(1)(b), Cr.P.C is not empowered to seal the F.I.R. Sealing of F.I.R by the police
is illegal and against the law [2006 P.Cr.L.J639]
Defect in F.I.R.
Mere defect in recording F.I.R, or even recording of F.I.R, after investigation, would not
make the whole trial illegal. F.I.R, was not a substantive piece of evidence and even if an F.I.R
was recorded after commencing of formal investigation, it would not destroy the whole trial and
it would not materially affect main case of prosecution [2006 P.Cr.L.J 1191].
Second F.I.R.
No power exists in lying information one after the other to be recorded as F.I.R where a
distinct and separate cognizable offence is disclosed and no effective inquiry or trial can be held
without properly appreciating and considering the two versions than another F.I.R is to be
registered.
Defect in F.I.R.
Mere defect in recording F.I.R, or even recording of F.I.R, after investigation, would not
make the whole trial illegal. F.I.R, was not a substantive piece of evidence and even if an F.I.R
was recorded after commencing of formal investigation, it would not destroy the whole trial and
it would not materially affect main case of prosecution [2006 P.Cr.L.J 1191].
Delay in F.I.R.
Delay in lodging the FIR is condonable keeping in view facts and circumstances of each case,
however, heavy duty is cast upon prosecution to explain the same, otherwise the prosecution
case would become doubtful. [PLJ 2004 S. C 552]. Expectation for making payment- No ground [
PLJ 1999 Cr.C Lah.330] No adverse inference can be drawn against prosecution on account of
delay in recording F.I.R is fatal is only when the same is not adequately explained.
Filing of civil suit:
Mere filing of a civil suit is not bar to the registration of criminal case if same is made out
from facts asserted that a criminal act is committed [ 1998 P.Cr.L.J 1269]
Duty of the police:
Police is duty bound to conduct investigation justly and fairly without having influenced
from the endorsement of higher officers [1999 P.Cr.L.J 1193]. Section 154 makes it obligatory for
an officer incharge of police station that every information relating to commission of a
cognizabe offence if given orally to an officer incharge of a police station would be reduced to
writing by him or under his direction. Refusal/reluctance of police to register a case in a befitting
case is violative of this provision of law. Falsification of charge can be checked upon complaint
through S. 182 PPC. [PLD 205 Pash 33].
False information:
Police under obligation to register a case. Legislation has placed check and balance through
S. 182, P.P.C [1999 P.Cr.L.J 1645]
Quashment of FIR.
Investigation malafide and without jurisdiction. High Court competent to correct such
proceedings and pass necessary orders to ensure justice and fairplay. [1996 SCMR 24, PLD 1971
S.C 677 foll.] High Court cannot assume the role of investigator. [1994 SCMR 2142] Supreme
Court disapproved the direction of the high court to submit periodical reports regarding the
progress of the case. [PLD 1994 S.C 218] however, High Court can correct proceedings of the
investigating agency based on malafide in fact and malafide in law.
Cancellation of FIR by Sessions Judge.
 Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain a miscellaneous application submitted by the
mother of the accused person whose case was pending trial before Magistrate and then to pass
order against an order passed a Magistrate refusing to discharge accused person or to cancel
FIR. Such an order is only an administrative order and not a judicial order amendable to
revisional jurisdiction [2003 YLR 245].
Refusal to register FIR-Remedy.
On refusal of the police to register FIR in a cognizable case, the adequate remedies available
to the agreed parties are firstly by approaching the Sessions Judge, ex officio justice of peace,
for exercise of power u/s 22-A (6), Cr.P.C, secondly, by approaching the Magistrate for exercise
of power under S. 156 (3) Cr.P.C and lastly by filing a direct complaint U/S 200 Cr.P.C invoking of
writ jurisdiction in the presence of adequate remedy being available is not desirement of law.
[2004 YLR 2599, PLD 2001 Kar. 269, PLD 1999 Lah. 417, 2003 YLR 550 ref]. Remedy under Art.
119 of Constitution can be exercised only on proof of non-availability of adequate remedy [ PLD
1987 S.C 21, 1987 SCMR 810].
Non-cognizable offence:
Section 155 provides that substance of such information shall be entered in a book to be
kept for such purpose and informant to be referred to Magistrate. No police officer shall
investigate in non-cognizable cases without order of Magistrate having power to try such case.
[PLJ 2000 Pesh 3] Provisions of S. 155(2) Cr.P.C requiring order of a Magistrate for investigation
of a non-cognizable offence are mandatory in nature. When law requires a thing to be done in a
particular manner, it ought to be done in that manner or not at all. [1993 P.Cr.L.J 205]
Proceedings being based on illegal foundation void ab initio [2000 MLD 655] Non-cognizable
offences cannot be investigated by police without the order of a Magistrate. [1997 P.Cr.L.J 1228]
Where a case is registered, relating to fact entailing commission of both cognizable and non-
cognizable offences. S. 155(2) Cr.P.C is not attracted and police can investigate all such cases
without permission of a Magistrate [1998 P.Cr.L.J 1718] For recording of information of
commission of non-cognizable offence another book is prescribed known as “Roznamcha” or
“Station Diary” in which information relating to commission of non-cognizable offence is
recorded and generally police would not initiate any action and the complaint or informant after
being given a copy of the report so entered is sent away. If SHO deems it fit to initiate
investigation then under subsection (2) of S. 155 police officer had to obtain order from the
Magistrate and if any arrest is to be effected then it could only be made after obtaining warrant
of arrest from the Magistrate under S.155(3), Cr.P.C [2005 YLR 1879].
Sections 155, 156, 157 & 174 Cr.P.C-Scope.
Sections 155, 156,, 157 & 174 Cr.P.C permits Police Officers only to investigate a case, while
remaining within the ambit of “investigation” as defined in S. 4(1)91) Cr.P.C, job of the
Investigation Officer is only to collect evidence and to place the same before the competent
Court. [2011 P.Cr.L.J 895] He is not supposed o give his finding her opinion as an expertee [2010
SCMR 660]
Cognizable and non-cognizable offences.
Difference between “cognizable” and “non-cognizable” offences. Investigation and
cognizance were two different steps. Difference between “cognizable” and “non-cognizable”
offences was that police in cognizable offence had authority to investigate case without
permission of Magistrate and could arrest accused without warrant. Whereas such powers were
not given to police officer in non-cognizable offence by virtue of S.155(2) Cr.P.C, and Third
column of Schedule II, attached to Criminal Pocedure Code, 1898. If police officer would arrest
any person in non-cognizable offence then he would expose himself for prosecution under
s.220, P.P.C, and if police officer would investigate case of non-cognizable offence without
permission of the Magistrate then he would violate direction of law as provided under S. 155(2),
Cr.P.C. [PLD 2005 Kar. 528].
Initial investigation:
Arrest of accused in a criminal case, if required, was to follow the initial investigation and
prima-facie to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer regarding there being some substance in
the complaint, allegation against accused person and not to precede it and any order contrary to
that amounted to putting cart before the horse. [2005 YLR2525]
Irregular investigation.
ASI proceeding to the spot and investigated without authorization from SHO- Irregular [
1972 P.Cr.L.J 400] Irregularity in the investigation in violation of S.156 may not vitiate the trial if
no serious prejudice is cause to the accused. [ PLD 2002 Lah 200] Trial may be vitiated on the
basis that an incompetent police officer had conducted the investigation [2008 YLR 1334].
Police has statutory right to investigate:
Police under this section has a statutory right to investigate the circumstances of an alleged
cognizable crime without requiring any permission from the judicial authorities and such
statutory right cannot be interfered with by judiciary. [2000 P.Cr.L.J 43].
Site plan:
Though not substantive piece of evidence but not a piece of waste paper and cannot be
lightly ignored. [2003 P.Cr.L.J 1778].
Private person:
Investigation is a legal duty of the police or other authorized agencies cannot be delegated
to any private person or body [2004 YLR 500]
Interference:
Investigation should only be intervene to save fundamental and legal right of the parties or
where mala fide and excess of jurisdiction is patent on the record. [2005 P.Cr.L.J1193]
Duty of the investigation Agency:
Investigation Agency is duty bound not only to investigate the matter in a manner to
connect the accused with the commission of the offence but also to bring the truth on the
surface to save the innocent persons from the endless agony of investigation and trial [2005
P.Cr.L.J 1477]
Use of sniffer dogs.
When the sniffer dog points out a house its duty ends, but at the very moment the duty of
investigation officer starts to further investigation the case and collect more evidence to
inculpate a particular person, and further corroborative evidence is required to lay hand on a
particular person as accused. Further the process of detection by a sniffer dog., even if
sponsored for the complainant must be supervised and managed by the I.O who must try to
insure compliance of S.103 Cr.P.C., in letter and spirit calling upon two or more inhabitants of
the locality to watch the process of search and detection by the sniffer dog, as for as it is
possible. [PLD 2008 Pesh. 69]
Saved in pin derive.
Supplementary statement:
No provision exists in Cr.P.C., about supplementary statement. Generally sub statement is
recorded to fill the lacunas in the prosecution case.[2007 YLR 534]. Tendency of police to add
something in the form of supplementary statement to be deprecated. Such matter to be
determined by Curt during trial. [2008 YLR 1891] Supplementary statement not equated with
FIR. It cannot be considered or read as part of FIR. FIR is a document which is entered into a
book maintained at the police station and thumb marked or signed by the first informant, while
the supplementary statement is recorded u/s 161 and is not signed.
Ipsi dixit of police:
Ipsi dixit of police is not binding on the Court unless the same is based on solid and cogent
reasoning. [2009 MLD 120] Opinion of Police Officer is not of much relevance. Magistrate while
taking cognizance has to form his own opinion on the basis of material/evidence place before
him in the shape of complete challan PLD 2010 Pesh, 54]
Reinvestigation:
System of reinvestigation is a recent innovation adopted by influential persons in order to
obtain favourable reports of investigation. Such reports do not assist the Courts in reaching a
right conclusion rather the same create more complication in the administration of criminal
justice. [PLD 2010 Lah. 224] After submission of challan in the Court and commencement of trial,
change of investigation or ordering further investigation in the case is not sustainable in law.
[PLD 2010 Lah. 224] Police is competent to re-investigate the matter even after the discharge go
accused by the Magistrate if some new evidence is brought on record to prima facie connect
him with the alleged offence. [ 2010 YLR 944].
Power of High Court to interfere:
High Court has no power to interfere with the police investigation and assume the role of
investigator. Conduct and manner of investigation is not to be scrutinize under constitutional
jurisdiction which might amount to interfere in police investigation as the same cannot be
substituted by the Court. [ PLD 2003 Kar 209].
Power to Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge to transfer investigation.

Sessions Judge and Additional Sessions Judge can transfer investigation from one I.O to
another I.O and can order for registration of case. [ 2005 MLD 945].
Prosecution:
Prosecution means judicial determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. It is not
the duty of the investigating agency to investigate the matter in such a manner to connect the
accused person with the offence but it is also the duty of the investigating agency to bring the
truth on the surface to save innocent persons from agony of endless investigation and trial. [
2003 P.Cr.L.J 56 Lah. D.B; PLD 1990 S.C.642; PLD 1968 S.C. 121] No bar to initiate both civil and
criminal proceedings. [NLR 2008 Cri. Lah. 48] Police cannot stop investigation on the ground that
subject matter involved is subject matter of civil suit pending before civil Court. [NLR 2008
Criminal 34].
Police asking for remand.
Police asking for physical remand of accused for recovery of some incriminative material.
Magistrate under S. 167 has only options, either to grant remand or to decline has no authority
of jurisdiction to take cognizance and discharge the accused of an offence exclusively triable by
Session Court [2000 P.Cr.L.J 43; PLJ1996 Lah. 680] Magistrate has no authority to discharge the
accused when the police is asking for physical remand in a case not triable by him. Only two
options are available to Magistrate either to grand remand or to decline the same for reasons to
the recorded and send the accused to judicial lock up. He has no authority or jurisdiction to take
cognizance and discharge the accused. [PLJ 2000 Lah. 80].
Version of accused:
Versions of accused to be recorded—Failure amounts to frustrate the constitutional
guarantee set out in art. 10 of the Constitution. [1998 P.Cr.L.J216]./
Nian (Oath):
Law does not enable Investigating Officer to decide the fate of criminal case on oath or
Nian. [PLD 1998 Lah.3] Taking oath on Holy Qur’an during investigation. Procedure aliean to
criminal law. [2007 YLR 1557].
Inquest report.
Omission dueto inadvertence or inefficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer to fill
column in the inquest report or failure to mention the number of the case or absence of details
of place of occurrence hardly discredit its authenticity or adversely affect investigation,
particularly in the presence of ocular account of the occurrence. [ PLD 2006 Pesh.5].
Sections 157 and 154, Cr.P.C.—Distinction. Provisions of Sections 154 and 157 Cr.P.C. are
different in scope. Section 154 Cr.P.C is applicable to a case where the F.I.R is given by some
other person and the action is not suo motu by the Officer-incharge of a Police Station and
makes it incumbent upon such officer to reduce in writing the information given or get it so
reduced and then to enter it in the book kept for the purpose. Provisions of S. 157 Cr.P.C, are
applicable only to investigation and not to the recording of the F.I.R. 2011 P.Cr.L.J 1826].
Discharge of accused:
Discharge of accused does not amount to acquittal. It only pertains to custody of accused.
Order only an administrative, discharged accused still be summoned—Order can be challenged
by State before High Court. [2001 P.Cr.L.J 160].
Magistrate disagreeing with discharge report, directing police to submit challan—illegal.
Can only ask report u/s 173 incorporating final opinion without any challan. [2001 MLD 1330].
Transfer of investigation:
Sesions Judge and Addl. Sessions Judge could transfer investigation from one Investigating
Officer to another Investigating Officer and could order for registration of case. [2005 MLD 945].
Declaring a witness hostile:
Article 150 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 can be invoked to establish that the witness of
guilty of prevarication, or that he was inconsistent in his statement or tried to suppress the truth
or that he bore animosity towards the party who called him. In the absence of any such act on
the part of witness party is not entitled to cross-examine his witness to impeach the credit.
Normally a witness who becomes hostile or adverse to the party who produced him for
recording evidence in his support is allowed to be cross-examined to impeach the credit of the
witness by evidence of the kind mentioned in Article 151, of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. Witness
who is unfavourable is not necessary speaking for hostile witness, is one who from the manner
in which he gives his evidence shows that he was not desirous of speaking the truth to the
Court. 2010 MLD 1148].

Thesis.

What is F.I.R:

F.I.R mean first information report regarding an occurrence to the police authorities which
can be given under section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code1898 orally or in writing signed by
the person given such information.
Purpose:
Purpose of F.I.R is set criminal law in motion and to obtain first hand information of
occurrence in order to exclude possibility of fabrication of story or consultation or complainant
has time to device or contrives any thing to his advantage and to the disadvantage of others.
Registration of F.I.R.
Section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code dealt with the registration of F.I.R. Under this
section a statutory duty has been cast upon the Office Incharge of Police Station to enter
information regarding the commission of cognizable offence in a register the form of which is
prescribed by the Provincial Government which is known as F.I.R parlance. Station House Officer
is under the legal obligation to register a F.I.R whenever allegations regarding commission of
cognizable offence are leveled before him. Use of word “shall” in section 154 Cr.P.C indicates
that it does not give discretionary power to the police officer to delay or refuse registration and
police officer has no other option but to proceed with the registration of crime report without
any delay.
F.I.R when loses its importance:
Once the maker of F.I.R is examined in Court then F.I.R. loses its that much importance and
is reduced to the position to the extract to be used only to corroborate as provided under Article
153 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 or contradict its maker in the manner as required under Article
140, Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984. It is neither a substantial piece of evidence nor conviction can be
base on it. [2011SCMR45].
Sections 154 and 157 Cr.P.C.-
Distinction. Provisions of Sections 154 and 157 Cr.P.C. are different in scope. Section 154
Cr.P.C is applicable to a case where the F.I.R is given by some other person and the action is not
suo motu by the Officer-incharge of a Police Station and makes it incumbent upon such officer
to reduce in writing the information give or get it so reduced and then to enter it in the book
kept for the purpose. Provisions of S. 157 Cr.P.C are applicable only to investigation and not to
the recording of the F.I.R [ 2011 P.Cr.L.J. 1826].
Cognizable cases.
If oral information regarding commission of a cognizable offence was communicated to an
officer incharge of Police Station, same would be reduced into writing by him; or under his
direction and be read over to the informant. No line of distinction and demarcation had been
made in S. 154 Cr.P.C., putting embargo to lay information before police, even after the
registration of first report regarding the same occurrence. [2011 P.Cr.L.J 1660].
Non-cognizable offence.
For recording of information of commission of non-cognizable offence another book is
prescribed known as “Roznamcha” or “Station Diary” in which information relating to
commission of non-cognizable offence is recorded and generally police would not initiate any
action and the complaint or informant after being given a copy of the report so entered is sent
away. If SHO deems it fit to initiate investigation then under subsection (2) of S.155 police
officer had to obtain order from the Magistrate and if any arrest is to be effected then it could
only be made after obtaining warrant of arrest from the Magistrate under S.155(3), Cr.P.C [2005
YLR 1879]
Sealing of F.I.R.
Police u/s 157(1)(b), Cr.P.C is not empowered to seal the F.I.R. Sealing of F.I.R by the police
is illegal and against the law [2006 P.Cr.L.J639]
Defect in F.I.R.
Mere defect in recording F.I.R, or even recording of F.I.R, after investigation, would not
make the whole trial illegal. F.I.R, was not a substantive piece of evidence and even if an F.I.R
was recorded after commencing of formal investigation, it would not destroy the whole trial and
it would not materially affect main case of prosecution [2006 P.Cr.L.J 1191].
Second F.I.R.
No power exists in lying information one after the other to be recorded as F.I.R where a
distinct and separate cognizable offence is disclosed and no effective inquiry or trial can be held
without properly appreciating and considering the two versions than another F.I.R is to be
registered.
Defect in F.I.R.
Mere defect in recording F.I.R, or even recording of F.I.R, after investigation, would not
make the whole trial illegal. F.I.R, was not a substantive piece of evidence and even if an F.I.R
was recorded after commencing of formal investigation, it would not destroy the whole trial and
it would not materially affect main case of prosecution [2006 P.Cr.L.J 1191].
Delay in F.I.R.
Delay in lodging the FIR is condonable keeping in view facts and circumstances of each case,
however, heavy duty is cast upon prosecution to explain the same, otherwise the prosecution
case would become doubtful. [PLJ 2004 S. C 552]. Expectation for making payment- No ground [
PLJ 1999 Cr.C Lah.330] No adverse inference can be drawn against prosecution on account of
delay in recording F.I.R is fatal is only when the same is not adequately explained.
Filing of civil suit:
Mere filing of a civil suit is not bar to the registration of criminal case if same is made out
from facts asserted that a criminal act is committed [ 1998 P.Cr.L.J 1269]
Duty of the police:
Police is duty bound to conduct investigation justly and fairly without having influenced
from the endorsement of higher officers [1999 P.Cr.L.J 1193]. Section 154 makes it obligatory for
an officer incharge of police station that every information relating to commission of a
cognizabe offence if given orally to an officer incharge of a police station would be reduced to
writing by him or under his direction. Refusal/reluctance of police to register a case in a befitting
case is violative of this provision of law. Falsification of charge can be checked upon complaint
through S. 182 PPC. [PLD 205 Pash 33].
False information:
Police under obligation to register a case. Legislation has placed check and balance through
S. 182, P.P.C [1999 P.Cr.L.J 1645]
Quashment of FIR.
Investigation malafide and without jurisdiction. High Court competent to correct such
proceedings and pass necessary orders to ensure justice and fairplay. [1996 SCMR 24, PLD 1971
S.C 677 foll.] High Court cannot assume the role of investigator. [1994 SCMR 2142] Supreme
Court disapproved the direction of the high court to submit periodical reports regarding the
progress of the case. [PLD 1994 S.C 218] however, High Court can correct proceedings of the
investigating agency based on malafide in fact and malafide in law.
Cancellation of FIR by Sessions Judge.
Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain a miscellaneous application submitted by the
mother of the accused person whose case was pending trial before Magistrate and then to pass
order against an order passed a Magistrate refusing to discharge accused person or to cancel
FIR. Such an order is only an administrative order and not a judicial order amendable to
revisional jurisdiction [2003 YLR 245].
Refusal to register FIR-Remedy.
On refusal of the police to register FIR in a cognizable case, the adequate remedies available
to the agreed parties are firstly by approaching the Sessions Judge, ex officio justice of peace,
for exercise of power u/s 22-A (6), Cr.P.C, secondly, by approaching the Magistrate for exercise
of power under S. 156 (3) Cr.P.C and lastly by filing a direct complaint U/S 200 Cr.P.C invoking of
writ jurisdiction in the presence of adequate remedy being available is not desirement of law.
[2004 YLR 2599, PLD 2001 Kar. 269, PLD 1999 Lah. 417, 2003 YLR 550 ref]. Remedy under Art.
119 of Constitution can be exercised only on proof of non-availability of adequate remedy [ PLD
1987 S.C 21, 1987 SCMR 810].
Non-cognizable offence:
Section 155 provides that substance of such information shall be entered in a book to be
kept for such purpose and informant to be referred to Magistrate. No police officer shall
investigate in non-cognizable cases without order of Magistrate having power to try such case.
[PLJ 2000 Pesh 3] Provisions of S. 155(2) Cr.P.C requiring order of a Magistrate for investigation
of a non-cognizable offence are mandatory in nature. When law requires a thing to be done in a
particular manner, it ought to be done in that manner or not at all. [1993 P.Cr.L.J 205]
Proceedings being based on illegal foundation void ab initio [2000 MLD 655] Non-cognizable
offences cannot be investigated by police without the order of a Magistrate. [1997 P.Cr.L.J 1228]
Where a case is registered, relating to fact entailing commission of both cognizable and non-
cognizable offences. S. 155(2) Cr.P.C is not attracted and police can investigate all such cases
without permission of a Magistrate [1998 P.Cr.L.J 1718] For recording of information of
commission of non-cognizable offence another book is prescribed known as “Roznamcha” or
“Station Diary” in which information relating to commission of non-cognizable offence is
recorded and generally police would not initiate any action and the complaint or informant after
being given a copy of the report so entered is sent away. If SHO deems it fit to initiate
investigation then under subsection (2) of S. 155 police officer had to obtain order from the
Magistrate and if any arrest is to be effected then it could only be made after obtaining warrant
of arrest from the Magistrate under S.155(3), Cr.P.C [2005 YLR 1879].
Sections 155, 156, 157 & 174 Cr.P.C-Scope.
Sections 155, 156,, 157 & 174 Cr.P.C permits Police Officers only to investigate a case, while
remaining within the ambit of “investigation” as defined in S. 4(1)91) Cr.P.C, job of the
Investigation Officer is only to collect evidence and to place the same before the competent
Court. [2011 P.Cr.L.J 895] He is not supposed o give his finding her opinion as an expertee [2010
SCMR 660]
Cognizable and non-cognizable offences.
Difference between “cognizable” and “non-cognizable” offences. Investigation and
cognizance were two different steps. Difference between “cognizable” and “non-cognizable”
offences was that police in cognizable offence had authority to investigate case without
permission of Magistrate and could arrest accused without warrant. Whereas such powers were
not given to police officer in non-cognizable offence by virtue of S.155(2) Cr.P.C, and Third
column of Schedule II, attached to Criminal Pocedure Code, 1898. If police officer would arrest
any person in non-cognizable offence then he would expose himself for prosecution under
s.220, P.P.C, and if police officer would investigate case of non-cognizable offence without
permission of the Magistrate then he would violate direction of law as provided under S. 155(2),
Cr.P.C. [PLD 2005 Kar. 528].
Initial investigation:
Arrest of accused in a criminal case, if required, was to follow the initial investigation and
prima-facie to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer regarding there being some substance in
the complaint, allegation against accused person and not to precede it and any order contrary to
that amounted to putting cart before the horse. [2005 YLR2525]
Irregular investigation.
ASI proceeding to the spot and investigated without authorization from SHO- Irregular [
1972 P.Cr.L.J 400] Irregularity in the investigation in violation of S.156 may not vitiate the trial if
no serious prejudice is cause to the accused. [ PLD 2002 Lah 200] Trial may be vitiated on the
basis that an incompetent police officer had conducted the investigation [2008 YLR 1334].
Police has statutory right to investigate:
Police under this section has a statutory right to investigate the circumstances of an alleged
cognizable crime without requiring any permission from the judicial authorities and such
statutory right cannot be interfered with by judiciary. [2000 P.Cr.L.J 43].
Site plan:
 Though not substantive piece of evidence but not a piece of waste paper and cannot be
lightly ignored. [2003 P.Cr.L.J 1778].
Private person:
Investigation is a legal duty of the police or other authorized agencies cannot be delegated
to any private person or body [2004 YLR 500]
Interference:
Investigation should only be intervene to save fundamental and legal right of the parties or
where mala fide and excess of jurisdiction is patent on the record. [2005 P.Cr.L.J1193]
Duty of the investigation Agency:
Investigation Agency is duty bound not only to investigate the matter in a manner to
connect the accused with the commission of the offence but also to bring the truth on the
surface to save the innocent persons from the endless agony of investigation and trial [2005
P.Cr.L.J 1477]
Use of sniffer dogs.
When the sniffer dog points out a house its duty ends, but at the very moment the duty of
investigation officer starts to further investigation the case and collect more evidence to
inculpate a particular person, and further corroborative evidence is required to lay hand on a
particular person as accused. Further the process of detection by a sniffer dog., even if
sponsored for the complainant must be supervised and managed by the I.O who must try to
insure compliance of S.103 Cr.P.C., in letter and spirit calling upon two or more inhabitants of
the locality to watch the process of search and detection by the sniffer dog, as for as it is
possible. [PLD 2008 Pesh. 69]
Saved in pin derive.
Supplementary statement:
No provision exists in Cr.P.C., about supplementary statement. Generally sub statement is
recorded to fill the lacunas in the prosecution case.[2007 YLR 534]. Tendency of police to add
something in the form of supplementary statement to be deprecated. Such matter to be
determined by Curt during trial. [2008 YLR 1891] Supplementary statement not equated with
FIR. It cannot be considered or read as part of FIR. FIR is a document which is entered into a
book maintained at the police station and thumb marked or signed by the first informant, while
the supplementary statement is recorded u/s 161 and is not signed.
Ipsi dixit of police:
Ipsi dixit of police is not binding on the Court unless the same is based on solid and cogent
reasoning. [2009 MLD 120] Opinion of Police Officer is not of much relevance. Magistrate while
taking cognizance has to form his own opinion on the basis of material/evidence place before
him in the shape of complete challan PLD 2010 Pesh, 54]
Reinvestigation:
System of reinvestigation is a recent innovation adopted by influential persons in order to
obtain favourable reports of investigation. Such reports do not assist the Courts in reaching a
right conclusion rather the same create more complication in the administration of criminal
justice. [PLD 2010 Lah. 224] After submission of challan in the Court and commencement of trial,
change of investigation or ordering further investigation in the case is not sustainable in law.
[PLD 2010 Lah. 224] Police is competent to re-investigate the matter even after the discharge go
accused by the Magistrate if some new evidence is brought on record to prima facie connect
him with the alleged offence. [ 2010 YLR 944].
Power of High Court to interfere:
High Court has no power to interfere with the police investigation and assume the role of
investigator. Conduct and manner of investigation is not to be scrutinize under constitutional
jurisdiction which might amount to interfere in police investigation as the same cannot be
substituted by the Court. [ PLD 2003 Kar 209].
Power to Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge to transfer investigation.

Sessions Judge and Additional Sessions Judge can transfer investigation from one I.O to
another I.O and can order for registration of case. [ 2005 MLD 945].
Prosecution:
Prosecution means judicial determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. It is not
the duty of the investigating agency to investigate the matter in such a manner to connect the
accused person with the offence but it is also the duty of the investigating agency to bring the
truth on the surface to save innocent persons from agony of endless investigation and trial. [
2003 P.Cr.L.J 56 Lah. D.B; PLD 1990 S.C.642; PLD 1968 S.C. 121] No bar to initiate both civil and
criminal proceedings. [NLR 2008 Cri. Lah. 48] Police cannot stop investigation on the ground that
subject matter involved is subject matter of civil suit pending before civil Court. [NLR 2008
Criminal 34].
Police asking for remand.
Police asking for physical remand of accused for recovery of some incriminative material.
Magistrate under S. 167 has only options, either to grant remand or to decline has no authority
of jurisdiction to take cognizance and discharge the accused of an offence exclusively triable by
Session Court [2000 P.Cr.L.J 43; PLJ1996 Lah. 680] Magistrate has no authority to discharge the
accused when the police is asking for physical remand in a case not triable by him. Only two
options are available to Magistrate either to grand remand or to decline the same for reasons to
the recorded and send the accused to judicial lock up. He has no authority or jurisdiction to take
cognizance and discharge the accused. [PLJ 2000 Lah. 80].
Version of accused:
Versions of accused to be recorded—Failure amounts to frustrate the constitutional
guarantee set out in art. 10 of the Constitution. [1998 P.Cr.L.J216]./
Nian (Oath):
Law does not enable Investigating Officer to decide the fate of criminal case on oath or
Nian. [PLD 1998 Lah.3] Taking oath on Holy Qur’an during investigation. Procedure aliean to
criminal law. [2007 YLR 1557].
Inquest report.
Omission dueto inadvertence or inefficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer to fill
column in the inquest report or failure to mention the number of the case or absence of details
of place of occurrence hardly discredit its authenticity or adversely affect investigation,
particularly in the presence of ocular account of the occurrence. [ PLD 2006 Pesh.5].
Sections 157 and 154, Cr.P.C.—Distinction. Provisions of Sections 154 and 157 Cr.P.C. are
different in scope. Section 154 Cr.P.C is applicable to a case where the F.I.R is given by some
other person and the action is not suo motu by the Officer-incharge of a Police Station and
makes it incumbent upon such officer to reduce in writing the information given or get it so
reduced and then to enter it in the book kept for the purpose. Provisions of S. 157 Cr.P.C, are
applicable only to investigation and not to the recording of the F.I.R. 2011 P.Cr.L.J 1826].
Discharge of accused:
Discharge of accused does not amount to acquittal. It only pertains to custody of accused.
Order only an administrative, discharged accused still be summoned—Order can be challenged
by State before High Court. [2001 P.Cr.L.J 160].
Magistrate disagreeing with discharge report, directing police to submit challan—illegal.
Can only ask report u/s 173 incorporating final opinion without any challan. [2001 MLD 1330].
Transfer of investigation:
Sesions Judge and Addl. Sessions Judge could transfer investigation from one Investigating
Officer to another Investigating Officer and could order for registration of case. [2005 MLD 945].
Declaring a witness hostile:
Article 150 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 can be invoked to establish that the witness of
guilty of prevarication, or that he was inconsistent in his statement or tried to suppress the truth
or that he bore animosity towards the party who called him. In the absence of any such act on
the part of witness party is not entitled to cross-examine his witness to impeach the credit.
Normally a witness who becomes hostile or adverse to the party who produced him for
recording evidence in his support is allowed to be cross-examined to impeach the credit of the
witness by evidence of the kind mentioned in Article 151, of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. Witness
who is unfavourable is not necessary speaking for hostile witness, is one who from the manner
in which he gives his evidence shows that he was not desirous of speaking the truth to the
Court. 2010 MLD 1148].