{"id":70,"date":"2019-09-09T08:24:32","date_gmt":"2019-09-09T08:24:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lawp07.epgpbooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/?post_type=chapter&p=70"},"modified":"2019-09-09T08:40:57","modified_gmt":"2019-09-09T08:40:57","slug":"reporting-of-crime","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/lawp07\/chapter\/reporting-of-crime\/","title":{"rendered":"Reporting of Crime"},"content":{"raw":"
\"epgp<\/a>\r\n<\/span><\/div>\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n

Introduction:<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Every criminal behaviour may not reach the formal system. The victims of crime may be too poor and too ignorant to report the matter to the formal authorities or they might be too far away, unconnected with the modes of communications. Such criminal incidents remain unreported and constitute the \u2018dark figures\u2019 of crime. However, quite a few crimes, particularly in urban areas that have better awareness and resources, do get reported and come to the formal system, constituting the crime record statistics. How the crime incidents get reported and what are the rules relating to reporting of crime are the focus of the present module.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Importance of reporting of crime:<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Reporting of crime\/criminal incident is the first step in the criminal adjudication process. By reporting of crime\/criminal incident the victim\/informant brings the crime into the notice of the formal system which gives opportunity to investigating agencies to detect the crime, apprehend the criminal and bring him to the process of adjudication for final determination of guilt. Early reporting of crime reduces the chances of tampering with evidence and prevents further commission of crimes.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

In the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.1 the Supreme Court has mentioned following benefits of reporting of crimes:<\/p>\r\n \r\n

a) It is the first step to 'access to justice' for a victim.<\/p>\r\n

b) It upholds the \u2018Rule of Law\u2019 inasmuch as the ordinary person brings forth the commission of a cognizable crime in the knowledge of the State.<\/p>\r\n

c) It also facilitates swift investigation and sometimes even prevention of any further crime. In both cases, it only effectuates the regime of law.<\/p>\r\n

d) It leads to less manipulation in criminal cases and lessens incidents of 'ante-dates' FIR or deliberately delayed FIR.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

3. Methods to report crimes:<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Under the Indian Criminal Procedure an aggrieved person may invoke the criminal justice process either by lodging an F.I.R. or by filing a complaint. These are:<\/p>\r\n \r\n

a) First,<\/strong> by recording of information disclosing commission of cognizable offence with the police officer under section 154 of the Code. Where the information discloses commission of a non cognizable offence, the police must proceed as per section 155 of the Code.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

b) Second, by filing complaint before a Magistrate under section 190(1)(a) read with section 200.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

The former would lead to investigation by the police which may culminate in a police report under section 173 of the Code. In the latter case, the Magistrate may either order investigation by the police under section 156(3) of the Code or himself hold an inquiry under Section 202 before taking cognizance of the offence. Though the police officer in-charge of a police station [u\/s 157(1)] and the Magistrate concerned [u\/s 190(1)(c)] have also been conferred with the power to take suo-moto<\/em> investigation\/cognizance of any cognizable offence.<\/p>\r\n\"\"\r\n\r\n \r\n

3.1 First Information Report (F.I.R.):<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

One of the methods of crime reporting is by registering First Information Report (FIR). This term is neither used nor defined in the Code. In fact, the information given under\u00a0 sub-section\u00a0 (1)\u00a0 of\u00a0 section\u00a0 154\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 Code\u00a0 is\u00a0 commonly\u00a0 known\u00a0 as\u00a0 First Information Report (FIR). It is the \u2018information\u2019 that is received first in point of time. The Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P.2 highlighted the object sought to be achieved by registering the FIR in the following words:<\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u201cIt has twin object- one, that the criminal process is set into motion and is well documented from the very start; and second, that the earliest information received in relation to the commission of a cognizable offence is recorded so that there cannot be any embellishment etc., later.\u201d<\/p>\r\n \r\n

3.1.1 Procedure and elemental requirement for registration of F.I.R.<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Section 154 (1) of the Code contains four mandates to be followed by the officer-in-charge of a police station. These are<\/p>\r\n \r\n

a) every information relating to commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally shall be reduced to writing;<\/p>\r\n \r\n

b) it shall be read over to the informant;<\/p>\r\n \r\n

c) every such information whether given in writing or reduced to writing shall be signed by the informant; and<\/p>\r\n \r\n

d) the substance of such information shall be entered in the station house diary.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Section 154 (2) entitles the informant to receive a copy of the information, as recorded under sub-section (1), free of cost.<\/p>\r\n\"\"\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n

The purpose of section 154 will be defeated if the police officer in charge of a police station refuses to record the information. Therefore, section 154 (3) provides for remedy against such refusal by an officer in charge of a police station to record the information. The person aggrieved thereby may send the substance of such information in writing and by post<\/em><\/strong> to the Superintendent of Police concerned who has an option either to investigate the case himself or direct the investigation to be made by a police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by the Code, if he is satisfied that the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The police officer to whom investigation is entrusted by the Superintendent of Police has all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Each FIR has a unique annual number given to it which is maintained in FIR book on\u00a0<\/span>an annual basis. This makes it possible to keep a strict control and track over the\u00a0<\/span>registration of FIRs by the supervisory police officers and by the courts, wherever\u00a0<\/span>necessary. Copy of each FIR is sent to the superior officers and to the concerned Judicial Magistrate. In Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar3 the Supreme Court has pointed\u00a0<\/span>out following procedure relating to F.I.R.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u201cFirst, Registration of FIR is to be done in a book called \u2018FIR book\u2019 or \u2018FIR Register\u2019, and secondly, the gist of the FIR or the substance of the FIR may also be mentioned simultaneously in the General Diary as mandated in the respective Police Act or Rules, as the case may be, under the relevant State provisions.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Similarly in the case of S.P., CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh4, the Supreme Court has held\u00a0<\/span>that an entry in General Diary (GD) may be treated as First Information where it\u00a0<\/span>discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

3.1.2 Whether information need be \u2018reasonable\u2019?<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

The issue whether the information under section 154 need to be \u2018reasonable\u2019 or\u00a0<\/span>\u2018credible\u2019 has brought attention of the Supreme Court time and again. In Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana5 the Supreme Court has discussed this issue in detail and summed up\u00a0<\/span>n the following words:<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u201cThe non qualification of the word \"information\" in Section 154(1) of the Code is for the reason that the police officer should not refuse to record any information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence on the ground that he is not satisfied with the reasonableness or credibility of the information. In other words, reasonableness or credibility of the said information is not a condition precedent for the registration of a case.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

In Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi)6 the Supreme Court held that an officer in\u00a0<\/span>charge of a police station is statutorily obliged to record an information disclosing\u00a0<\/span>commission of a cognizable offence. He cannot refuse to register the FIR on the\u00a0<\/span>ground that the information is not relevant or credible.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Again in Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab7 the Supreme Court further fortified its stand in the following words:<\/p>\r\n

\u201cAt the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence in compliance with the mandate of Section 154(1) of the Code, the police officer concerned cannot embark upon an inquiry as to whether the information laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible.\u201d<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Therefore, an overall reading of the Code along-with the judgments discussed above makes\u00a0 it\u00a0 clear\u00a0 that\u00a0 the\u00a0 condition\u00a0 which\u00a0 is\u00a0 sine\u00a0 qua\u00a0 non<\/em>\u00a0 for\u00a0 recording\u00a0 a\u00a0 First Information\u00a0 Report\u00a0 is\u00a0 that\u00a0 there\u00a0 must\u00a0 be\u00a0 information\u00a0 and\u00a0 that\u00a0 information\u00a0 must disclose a cognizable offence.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

3.1.3 What is cognizable offence?<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

The Code of Criminal Procedure has not prescribed any criterion for determining nature of any offence as to cognizable or non-cognizable. Section 2(c) of the Code which\u00a0 defines\u00a0 \u2018cognizable\u2019\u00a0 offence\u00a0 simply\u00a0 states\u00a0 that\u00a0 an\u00a0 offence\u00a0 for\u00a0 which,\u00a0 and \u2018cognizable case\u2019 means a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under and other law for the time being in force, arrest without\u00a0<\/em>warrant.<\/em><\/p>\r\n \r\n

First Schedule of the Code refers to all the offences under the Indian Penal Code and puts them into cognizable and non-cognizable offences. As a broad proposition it can be stated that offences which are serious in nature and are punishable with not less than three years of imprisonment are considered as \u2018cognizable\u2019 offence. In case of a cognizable offence, a police officer can arrest without warrant and can investigate into such a case without any direction or order from a Magistrate.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

3.1.4 Telephonic information:<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Section 154 of the Code requires the officer in charge of a police station to reduce to writing every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, even if given orally to such officer. The issue whether telephonic information if reduced to writing, can be treated as F.I.R. has been answered by the Supreme Court in the following cases:<\/p>\r\n \r\n

In Ramsinh Bavaji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat8 the Court has held that \u201cIf the telephonic message is cryptic in nature and the officer in charge proceeds to the place of occurrence on the basis of that information to find out the details of the nature of the offence itself, then it cannot be said that the information, which had been received by him on telephone, shall be deemed to be First Information Report. The object and purpose of giving such telephonic message is not to lodge the First Information Report, but to request the officer in charge of the police station to reach the place of occurrence.\u201d<\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u201cOn the other hand, if the information given on telephone is not cryptic and on the basis of that information, the officer in charge, is prima facie<\/em> satisfied about the commission of a cognizable offence and he proceeds from the police station, after recording such information, to investigate such offence then that piece of information will constitute F.I.R.\u201d<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Similar view has been shared by another Bench of the Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. V.V. Panduranga Rao.9 Similarly in case of Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab10 the Supreme Court ruled that where an anonymous telephonic message neither discloses names of the accused nor the commission of a cognizable offence, it cannot be treated\u00a0as FIR. The mere fact that this information was the first in point of time does not by itself clothe it with the character of First Information Report.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

In this regard a comparison of the factual matrix of Tapinder Singh<\/em> and Ramsinh\u00a0<\/em>Bavaji Jadeja <\/em>are worth noting. In Tapinder Singh <\/em>the information received over telephone was vague in nature and only revealed \u2018firing at taxi stand\u2019 without any specific input therefore the Court was justified in treating such information as cryptic in nature. But in Ramsinh Bavaji Jadeja<\/em> the information given over telephone could have been considered to satisfy the requirements of section 154 of the Code because of the fact that it was given by the Head Constable giving duty at the hospital where the deceased was brought and secondly he also narrated the facts as to scene of crime\u00a0and commission of the cognizable offence.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

3.1.5 Second F.I.R.<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

In a situation where more information than one are given to a police officer in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences, whether the police officer should register both the information separately or he may record any one of the information as FIR. The Supreme Court has evolved the \u2018test of sameness\u2019 and \u2018consequence test\u2019 to decide the validity of the second FIR.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

One of the earliest cases where the Indian Supreme Court discussed the permissibility of a second FIR was Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration).11 The Supreme Court laid down the \u2018test of sameness\u2019 to decide this issue. It was held that the two FIR\u2019s denoted separate conspiracies and separate incidents, wherein the first FIR reveals a smaller conspiracy, the second FIR exposed a larger conspiracy enlarging\u00a0the ramifications of offences and scope of the FIR. In such a situation the larger conspiracy cannot be said to be part of the FIR registered first therefore, the second FIR is permissible.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

In T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala12 the Supreme Court relying on the ratio of Ram Lal\u00a0<\/em>Narang <\/em>quashed the second FIR. The Court found that the facts of both the FIR\u2019s were similar, against similar individuals and for similar offences; therefore they could be stated to be in the course of the same transaction. The Court opined that \u201cOnly the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 of the Code. Thus there can be no second F.I.R. and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence.\u201d<\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u201cAll other information made orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation in the cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the FIR and entered in the station house diary by the police officer or such other cognizable offences as may come to his notice during the investigation, will be statements falling under Section 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure.\u201d<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Similarly in Chirra Shivraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh13 the Court has stated that \u201cA second F.I.R. of the same incident\/offence is not permissible. Any information after wards received by police of the same incidence always is to be in furtherance of first information.\u201d<\/p>\r\n \r\n

In Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P.14 the Court has applied the \u2018sameness test\u2019 to verify the validity of the second FIR and stated that \u201cThere cannot be two FIRs registered for the same offence. However, where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different, or even where the subsequent crime is of such magnitude that it does not fall within the ambit and scope of the FIR recorded first, then a second FIR could be registered.\u201d<\/p>\r\n \r\n

However, in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI15 the Supreme Court applied the second test to determine whether a second FIR was permissible or not. Relying on the \u2018test of consequence\u2019 the Court has stated that \u201cIf the offence forming part of the second FIR arises as a consequence of the offence alleged in the first FIR then offences covered by both the FIRs are the same and, accordingly, the second FIR will be impermissible in law. In other words, the offences covered in both the FIRs shall have to be treated as part of the first FIR.\u201d<\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u201cThere cannot be second FIR in respect of the same offence\/event because whenever any further information is received by the investigating agency, it is always in furtherance of the first FIR. Filing of the second FIR and fresh charge sheet is violative of fundamental rights under Article 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution.\u201d<\/p>\r\n \r\n

3.1.6 Implications of delay in registering FIR:<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Information under section 154 must be given at the earliest possible opportunity after the\u00a0 commission of the offence.\u00a0 Prompt\u00a0 lodging of FIR presumes\u00a0 fairness in the administration\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 criminal\u00a0\u00a0 justice.\u00a0\u00a0 Delay\u00a0\u00a0 in\u00a0\u00a0 lodging\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0 FIR\u00a0\u00a0 often\u00a0\u00a0 results\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought and much deliberation.But delay per se<\/em> is not a ground to disbelieve the prosecution story.Recent trends suggest that the court is not in favour of giving any weight to the factors like delay in lodging FIR in sexual offences. In case of State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh16\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 Supreme\u00a0\u00a0 Court\u00a0 appealed\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 courts\u00a0 to\u00a0\u00a0 display\u00a0\u00a0 a\u00a0\u00a0 greater\u00a0\u00a0 sense\u00a0\u00a0 of responsibility\u00a0 and\u00a0 \u2018to\u00a0 be\u00a0 more\u00a0 sensitive\u2019\u00a0 in\u00a0 handling\u00a0 cases\u00a0 of\u00a0 sexual\u00a0 assault\u00a0 on women, particularly of tender age and children.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

3.1.7 Mandatory Registration of F.I.R.<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

The question whether it is obligatory for the police to register FIR on information given by an informant or he has discretion of conducting some kind of preliminary enquiry before registering FIR, has been answered in the affirmative by the five Judge Bench in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.17 It was noticed by the Supreme Court that there were divergent judicial opinions on this issue. The Bench has set the issue at rest and given following directions:<\/p>\r\n \r\n

(a) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

(b) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

(c) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

(d) Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

(e) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Therefore, it can be said that a police officer is duty bound to register a case on the basis of information pertaining to a cognizable offence.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

3.1.8 Exceptions to Mandatory Registration of F.I.R.<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

The Supreme Court in <\/span>Lalita Kumari<\/em> case has mentioned an illustrative list of cases where the police officer may conduct a kind of preliminary inquiry before registering FIR. Such category of cases are:<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

(a) Matrimonial disputes\/family disputes<\/span><\/p>\r\n

(b) Commercial offences<\/span><\/p>\r\n

(c) Medical negligence cases<\/span><\/p>\r\n

(d) Corruption cases<\/span><\/p>\r\n

(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

The Court further directed that the preliminary inquiry shall get over within seven days time. Any delay and the causes of such delay must be recorded in the General Diary entry. All information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the Station Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be recorded.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

3.1.9 Special Reporting Procedure in respect of specific class of offences:<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 has brought some relevant changes in section 154 with regard to registration of FIR in relation to crimes against women. The <\/span>first proviso<\/em> to section 154 (1) provides that where any information is given by a woman against whom an offence of acid attack, sexual harassment or rape is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded by a woman police officer or any other woman officer.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

In cases, where the said woman is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, the <\/span>second proviso<\/em> obligates the police officer to record such information at her residence or at a convenient place of her choice. The <\/span>proviso<\/em> requires presence of interpreter or a special educator at the time of recording. Clause (b) of the <\/span>second<\/em> proviso <\/em>mandates videography of the recording of such information. Lastly, clause (c) of the <\/span>second proviso<\/em> requires the police officer to get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under Clause (a) of Sub-section (5A) of Section 164 as soon as possible.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\"\"\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n

3.1.10 Special Rules of mandatory reporting for select offences<\/strong>:<\/p>\r\n \r\n

The number of crimes against women and children has always been shown less than their actual number in the Crime Record statistics. The reason for this is twofold. First, less number of reporting of these crimes and second, reluctance on the part of the authorities to record these crimes. To overcome these situations, following provisions are introduced in respective enactments:<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Section 166A(c) confers a positive obligation on a police officer and lays down that if a police officer fails to record any information given to him under Section 154(1) of the Code in relation to offences of acid attack, sexual harassment or rape, he shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

The intention of the legislature in putting forth section 166A(c) by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 is to tighten the already existing provisions to provide enhanced safeguards to women.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Section 20 of the Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO)\u00a0<\/span>express an obligation upon media personnel, staffs of hotels, lodges, hospitals, clubs,<\/span>studios or photographic facilities to report a case to the Special Juvenile Police Unit\u00a0<\/span>(SJPU)\/local police.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Non-reporting of commission of an offence falling under sections 19(1) or 20 will\u00a0<\/span>invite criminal sanction of imprisonment up to one year and fine under section 21 of\u00a0<\/span>the Act. Such criminal sanction can also be invoked against the authorities who fail to\u00a0<\/span>record such offence under section 19(2).<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

3.2 Implications of registration of F.I.R.<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Registration of FIR brings the crime within the criminal justice system to which\u00a0<\/span>judicial authorities have power to be appraised of by the police officer. By virtue of\u00a0<\/span>section\u00a0 157\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 Code,\u00a0 immediately\u00a0 after\u00a0 registration\u00a0 of\u00a0 FIR\u00a0 the\u00a0 Investigating\u00a0<\/span>officer is required to send forthwith a copy of the FIR to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. As laid down in H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi19, the\u00a0<\/span>recording of information triggers investigation by a police officer under section 156(1) without the order of the Magistrate which consists of following steps:<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

(1) Proceeding to the spot,<\/span><\/p>\r\n

(2) Ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case,<\/span><\/p>\r\n

(3) Discovery and arrest of the suspected offender,<\/span><\/p>\r\n

(4) Collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence which may\u00a0<\/span>consist of\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

(a) the examination of various persons (including the accused) and the reduction of their statements into writing, if the officer thinks fit,<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

(b) the search of places of seizure of things considered necessary for the investigation and to be produced at the trial, and<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

(5) Formation of the opinion as to whether on the material collected there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and if so taking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of a charge-sheet under section 173.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

3.2.1 Consequences of Giving Information:<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Registration of FIR under section 154 of the Code enables the police machinery to investigate the crime. Section 157 of the Code lays down procedure for such investigation and requires that as soon as the FIR is registered it must reach to the Magistrate without undue delay. The object of such provision is to make judiciary apprise of the registration of the FIR. It also prevents any kind of manipulation or fabrication in the process of investigation. A bare reading of section 157 suggests that FIR is not an indispensable requisite for the investigation of a crime. The police officer may also proceed to investigate a crime if he has <\/span>reason to suspect<\/em> the commission of an offence. At the same time, police is not liable to launch an investigation in every FIR which is mandatorily registered on receiving information relating to commission of a cognizable offence. But if it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for conducting investigation, he can foreclose the investigation. It is evident from the language of section 157(1) of the Code which states that a police officer can start investigation when he has a \u2018<\/span>reason to suspect the commission of an offence<\/em>\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

3.2.2 Implications where police declines to investigate:<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Where the officer in charge of a police station has decided not to proceed with the investigation, he is required to state reasons in his report for doing so. The officer in charge of a police station is duty bound to inform the informant about his decision. Under section 159 the Magistrate is empowered to take necessary steps after receiving the report of a police officer under section 157. He may;<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n