Question

In the concluding part of the judgment excerpted above, preliminary inquiries were permitted for which of the following class or classes of cases?

• A. Offences related to matrimonial disputes
• B. Allegations of corruption against public officers
• C. Where the information was received after substantial delay, such as more than three months after the alleged incident
• D. All the above
• A. That a cryptic phone call, without complete details and information about the commission of a cognizable offence cannot always be treated as a F.I.R.
• B. That non-reading-over of the recorded complaint by the police to the informant will vitiate the recording of the F.I.R.
• C. That F.I.R.s are substantive pieces of evidence at the trial and can be duly proved to establish the facts in issue at a trial.
• D. That F.I.R.s are necessarily hearsay statements and cannot be relied upon to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein.
• A. That the police officer has not followed the mandatory procedure of sending a copy of the FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate upon registration.
• B. That the statement recorded as the FIR is a hearsay statement made by the police officer himself and therefore cannot be admissible in evidence.
• C. That the recorded FIR becomes a statement under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, because the Station House Diary entry will be considered the FIR.
• D. That the procedure set out in Section 190, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been violated by the police officer.
• A. Violative of right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
• B. A statement that cannot be proved as a confession hit by Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• C. A statement that can be used as substantive evidence against its maker, since there was no accusation against him at the time he made the statement.
• D. A statement that can be retracted by the accused person at the time of trial, and thereafter the commission of the offence cannot be proved.
• A. Admitted the commission of the offence in the terms of the offence.
• B. Admitted the commission of the ingredients for the commission of the offence.
• C. Either (A) or (B)
• D. Both (A) and (B)
• A. Refers to a standard where a document by its stated terms displays the sought fact.
• B. Refers to a standard where a document by very simple perusal displays the sought fact.
• C. Refers to a standard which calls for an application of mind by the finder of fact to infer a conclusion.
• D. Refers to a standard which requires no consideration unless proved otherwise by the opposite side.
• A. Within a period not exceeding fifteen days
• B. Within a period not exceeding seven days
• C. As expeditiously as possible but the Court did not specify a timeline
• D. Within such time as may be permitted by the jurisdictional Magistrate
• A. The entire information will be treated as disclosing cognizable offences and registered as an F.I.R.
• B. The police officer will sever the parts disclosing non-cognizable offences and shall only register the parts disclosing cognizable offences.
• C. The police officer shall refer the informant to the jurisdictional Magistrate for a direction to register the F.I.R., and thereafter, once such direction is received, register the F.I.R.
• D. The F.I.R. registered, which contains information of non-cognizable offences, is subject to confirmation by a Magistrate under Sections 156 and 157 of Cr.P.C.
• A. Cogent and reliable information disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence.
• B. Higher than the requirement under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. as the Section uses the term “reason to suspect the commission of an offence”.
• C. Precisely the same standard under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and the police have no discretion in the matter.
• D. At the same standard as for a non-cognizable complaint being scrutinised by a Judicial Magistrate.
• A. That the informant must be believed for the purposes of registering the F.I.R.
• B. That the information must be taken as true for the purposes of registering the F.I.R.
• C. That the police cannot reject any information disclosing the commission of a cognisable offence on the basis of it being false.
• D. All the above

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Reference to Lalita Kumari guidelines.
In Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014), the Supreme Court listed situations where preliminary inquiry is permissible before registering an FIR. These include matrimonial disputes, corruption allegations, and cases with abnormal delay in reporting.
Step 2: Option-wise analysis.
(A) Correct — matrimonial disputes often require preliminary verification.
(B) Correct — corruption allegations also fall in permissible preliminary inquiry category.
(C) Correct — substantial delay in complaint justifies limited preliminary inquiry. 
Step 3: Conclusion.
All three match the Court’s permissible categories ⇒ \(\boxed{\text{(D)}}\).

Answer 2

Step 1: Legal principle on FIR validity.
The Court clarified that the essential element of an FIR is that it must ex facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. A cryptic or incomplete message does not fulfill this requirement.
Step 2: Eliminating other options.
(B) Incorrect — non-reading-over is not the principle reiterated in this case.
(C) Incorrect — FIRs are not substantive evidence except for limited purposes.
(D) Incorrect — FIRs are not inherently hearsay; they have evidentiary value under certain provisions. 
Step 3: Conclusion.
Only (A) matches the principle reiterated ⇒ \(\boxed{\text{(A)}}\).

Answer 3

Step 1: FIR registration requirement.
As per Lalita Kumari, once information discloses a cognizable offence, FIR must be registered forthwith. Recording it in a Station House Diary without FIR registration is improper. 
Step 2: Legal consequence.
If the first recorded version is in the Station House Diary, it is treated as the FIR. Any subsequent formal FIR becomes a statement during investigation under Section 161 CrPC. 
Step 3: Conclusion.
This is exactly what option (C) states ⇒ \(\boxed{\text{(C)}}\).

Answer 4

Step 1: Self-incriminatory FIR.
Section 25 of the Evidence Act bars the use of confessions made to a police officer as proof against the accused. An FIR lodged by the accused containing a confession is covered by this bar. 
Step 2: Why Article 20(3) not applicable here.
Article 20(3) protects against compelled self-incrimination. Here, the statement was voluntary; the bar arises from Section 25, not constitutional compulsion.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Thus, the FIR cannot be used to prove the confession ⇒ \(\boxed{\text{(B)}}\).

Answer 5

Step 1: Definition from Privy Council.
In Pakala Narayanaswami, a confession was defined broadly to include not only a direct admission of the offence but also an admission of all facts that constitute the offence.
Step 2: Applying to options.
(A) Correct — direct admission in offence terms is a confession.
(B) Correct — admission of ingredients constituting the offence is also a confession.
Thus, (C) “Either (A) or (B)” correctly covers both.
Step 3: Conclusion.
\(\boxed{\text{(C)}}\) is the answer.

Answer 6

Step 1: Meaning of ex facie.
The term means “on the face of it” — something apparent without detailed investigation or inference. |
Step 2: Matching with the legal context.
In legal terms, ex facie refers to what is immediately obvious from a document or act upon straightforward reading, without the need for deeper analysis. 
Step 3: Option elimination.
(A) Incorrect — while close, “stated terms” may still require interpretation.
(B) Correct — “simple perusal” captures the immediate-obviousness aspect.
(C) Incorrect — this involves inference, contrary to ex facie meaning.
(D) Incorrect — unrelated to burden of proof considerations.
Step 4: Conclusion.
Thus, \(\boxed{\text{(B)}}\) is correct.

Answer 7

Step 1: Court’s directive in Lalita Kumari.
The Court set a strict timeline — preliminary inquiries, where permissible, must be completed within seven days to avoid undue delay in FIR registration. 
Step 2: Eliminate wrong options.
(A) Incorrect — 15 days was not prescribed in the judgment.
(C) Incorrect — Court did specify a limit (seven days).
(D) Incorrect — Magistrate’s permission is not the standard for inquiry duration. 
Step 3: Conclusion.
Therefore, \(\boxed{\text{(B)}}\) is correct.

Answer 8

Step 1: Principle on mixed information.
When the facts disclosed include at least one cognizable offence, the entire set of facts is treated as cognizable for FIR purposes — splitting them is not required at the registration stage. 
Step 2: Eliminate wrong options.
(B) Incorrect — severance is not done at registration stage.
(C) Incorrect — referral to Magistrate is for purely non-cognizable cases.
(D) Incorrect — Sections 156 and 157 CrPC govern investigation procedure, not FIR confirmation. 
Step 3: Conclusion.
Thus, \(\boxed{\text{(A)}}\) is correct.

Answer 9

Step 1: Section 154 vs Section 157 threshold.
Section 154 mandates FIR registration when information discloses a cognizable offence. Section 157, however, deals with launching an investigation and uses “reason to suspect” — a slightly higher threshold requiring some preliminary satisfaction of suspicion. 
Step 2: Court’s interpretation in Lalita Kumari.
The Court recognised this difference, holding that while FIR registration is mandatory upon disclosure, investigation requires the officer to form a reasonable suspicion based on the information. 
Step 3: Conclusion.
Option (B) correctly reflects this higher threshold under Section 157 ⇒ \(\boxed{\text{(B)}}\).

Answer 10

Step 1: Principle from Lalita Kumari.
At FIR registration stage, the only test is whether the information ex facie discloses a cognizable offence. The genuineness, credibility, or falsity of the information is irrelevant at this stage. |
Step 2: Implications for police.
(A) True — informant’s version must be accepted at face value for registration purposes.
(B) True — the statement is taken as true at the registration stage.
(C) True — police cannot refuse to register on grounds of suspected falsity. 
Step 3: Conclusion.
Since all three are correct, \(\boxed{\text{(D)}}\) is correct.