⚠ Two new requirements in section 193(3)

Clause (i) is new: where an electronic device is involved, the report must state the sequence of custody of that device — a statutory requirement of the chain of custody, and the first of its kind in the criminal procedure statute.

Clause (h) is also new: where the investigation relates to the specified sexual offences, the report must have attached to it the report of the medical examination of the woman.

And section 193(3) further requires the officer to inform the informant or victim of the progress of the investigation within ninety days — so the period between the two documents, which was once a silence the complainant could do nothing about, now carries an obligation to report.

Taken together these convert the police report from a bare conclusion into a document which must account for how the investigation was conducted.

📖 Ramsinh Bavaji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, (1994) 2 SCC 685

Facts: Information about an occurrence reached the police in a brief and cryptic form, and an officer proceeded to the spot. A fuller statement was recorded later, and the question was which of the two constituted the first information report.

Held: The Supreme Court held that whether a cryptic or incomplete message amounts to a first information report depends on whether it discloses information about the commission of a cognizable offence sufficient to require the officer to proceed to investigate. Where the message is so cryptic that it does no more than prompt the officer to go and see what has happened — conveying no information about an offence — it is not an FIR, and the statement recorded on reaching the spot is. But where the message does convey information about a cognizable offence, it is the first information report, and a later fuller statement by the same person is a statement in the course of the investigation, subject to the bar on its use. The Court emphasised that the question is one of fact in each case, and that the object of the enquiry is to identify the first version — because the value of the FIR lies in its being given before there was time to reflect, consult or improve.

Ratio: Whether a cryptic message is an FIR depends on whether it discloses information about a cognizable offence sufficient to require investigation. The object is to identify the first version, given before there was time to reflect or improve.

📖 Union Public Service Commission v. S. Papaiah, (1997) 7 SCC 614

Facts: A police report was filed recommending that no further proceedings be taken, and the Magistrate accepted it and closed the case without notice to the complainant on whose information the investigation had been begun.

Held: The Supreme Court held that where a police report recommends that no further proceedings be taken, the Magistrate is not bound to accept it: he may disagree, take cognizance on the material, or direct further investigation. But it held that before accepting such a report and closing the case, the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and afford him an opportunity of being heard — because the closure terminates the proceeding initiated on his information and affects him directly. The Court held that the informant’s right to be heard at that stage is not a formality: he may be able to point to material the investigating officer overlooked, or to show that the investigation was perfunctory; and an order of closure made without hearing him is liable to be set aside. It emphasised that the Magistrate must apply his own mind to the material and not simply endorse the officer’s conclusion.

Ratio: A Magistrate is not bound by a report recommending closure and may take cognizance or direct further investigation. But he must give notice to the informant and hear him before accepting it, and must apply his own mind rather than endorse the officer’s conclusion.

The position stated shortly

1. The FIR sets the investigation in motion; the police report closes it and places the result before the Court.

2. The FIR records information about a cognizable offence and no more. It is not an encyclopaedia.

3. The police report must state the parties, the nature of the information, the persons acquainted with the circumstances, whether an offence appears to have been committed and by whom, and the position as to arrest, bail and custody.

4. The FIR enables the police to investigate without a Magistrate’s order; the police report enables the Magistrate to take cognizance.

5. Neither is substantive evidence. The FIR may corroborate or contradict its maker; the police report is not evidence at all, being the officer’s opinion.

6. Section 193(3)(i) is new: where an electronic device is involved, the report must state the sequence of custody — a statutory chain-of-custody requirement.

7. Section 193(3) also requires the informant or victim to be informed of the progress within ninety days.

8. Whether a cryptic message is an FIR depends on whether it discloses information about a cognizable offence sufficient to require investigation: Ramsinh Bavaji Jadeja.

9. The object is to identify the first version, given before there was time to reflect, consult or improve.

10. A Magistrate is not bound by a closure report — but must give notice to the informant and apply his own mind before accepting it: S. Papaiah.