Comprehension
In view of various counter claims regarding registration or non-registration, what is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of a FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register a FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of a FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR.
[Excerpted from the judgment delivered by Sathasivam, C.J.I. in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1 (hereafter ‘Lalita Kumari’)]
[Excerpted from the judgment delivered by Sathasivam, C.J.I. in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1 (hereafter ‘Lalita Kumari’)]
Question: 1
In the concluding part of the judgment excerpted above, preliminary inquiries were permitted for which of the following class or classes of cases?
In the concluding part of the judgment excerpted above, preliminary inquiries were permitted for which of the following class or classes of cases?
Updated On: July 22, 2025
- Offences related to matrimonial disputes
- Allegations of corruption against public officers
- Where the information was received after substantial delay, such as more than three months after the alleged incident
- All the above
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (D): All the above.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
In the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Netaji Achyut Shinde (Patil) v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) SCC Online SC 247, a three-judge bench of the Court reiterated which of the following principles relating to a FIR?
In the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Netaji Achyut Shinde (Patil) v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) SCC Online SC 247, a three-judge bench of the Court reiterated which of the following principles relating to a FIR?
Updated On: July 22, 2025
- 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.
- That non-reading-over of the recorded complaint by the police to the informant will vitiate the recording of the F.I.R.
- 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.
- That F.I.R.s are necessarily hearsay statements and cannot be relied upon to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (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..
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
Upon receipt of a complaint disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence from an informant, the station house officer of a police station proceeds to record the substance of the complaint in the Station House Diary. Thereafter, he proceeds to conduct investigation by going to the spot of the incident, collecting materials from the scene, and recording statements of persons he believes have information about the alleged crime. On the next day, he calls the informant to the police station again, and this time, proceeds to record a formal F.I.R. for the offences. He then gives a copy of the registered F.I.R. to the informant and sends him home. The duly registered F.I.R. can be challenged on which of the following grounds?
Upon receipt of a complaint disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence from an informant, the station house officer of a police station proceeds to record the substance of the complaint in the Station House Diary. Thereafter, he proceeds to conduct investigation by going to the spot of the incident, collecting materials from the scene, and recording statements of persons he believes have information about the alleged crime. On the next day, he calls the informant to the police station again, and this time, proceeds to record a formal F.I.R. for the offences. He then gives a copy of the registered F.I.R. to the informant and sends him home. The duly registered F.I.R. can be challenged on which of the following grounds?
Updated On: July 22, 2025
- That the police officer has not followed the mandatory procedure of sending a copy of the F.I.R. to the jurisdictional magistrate upon registration.
- That the statement recorded as the F.I.R. is a hearsay statement made by the police officer himself and therefore cannot be admissible in evidence.
- That the recorded F.I.R. becomes a statement under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, because the Station House Diary entry will be considered the F.I.R.
- That the procedure set out in Section 190, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been violated by the police officer.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (C): That the recorded F.I.R. becomes a statement under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, because the Station House Diary entry will be considered the F.I.R..
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
In the case of Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119, the accused himself walked to the police station and registered an F.I.R. against himself for the murder of his family members. There was no formal information of the commission of the offence prior to the accused himself having the F.I.R. registered. Per the judgment in the case, such an F.I.R. would be considered:
In the case of Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119, the accused himself walked to the police station and registered an F.I.R. against himself for the murder of his family members. There was no formal information of the commission of the offence prior to the accused himself having the F.I.R. registered. Per the judgment in the case, such an F.I.R. would be considered:
Updated On: July 22, 2025
- Violative of right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
- A statement that cannot be proved as a confession hit by Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
- 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.
- 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.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (B): A statement that cannot be proved as a confession hit by Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
In the case of Pakala Narayanaswami v. King Emperor, 1939 Cri LJ 364 (PC), the Privy Council held that a statement would be a confession if it:
In the case of Pakala Narayanaswami v. King Emperor, 1939 Cri LJ 364 (PC), the Privy Council held that a statement would be a confession if it:
Updated On: July 22, 2025
- Admitted the commission of the offence in the terms of the offence.
- Admitted the commission of the ingredients for the commission of the offence.
- Either (A) or (B)
- Both (A) and (B)
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (C): Either (A) or (B).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 6
In the excerpt above, the Supreme Court refers to the standard of ex facie. Such a standard in law can be explained as:
In the excerpt above, the Supreme Court refers to the standard of ex facie. Such a standard in law can be explained as:
Updated On: July 22, 2025
- Refers to a standard where a document by its stated terms displays the sought fact.
- Refers to a standard where a document by very simple perusal displays the sought fact.
- Refers to a standard which calls for an application of mind by the finder of fact to infer a conclusion.
- Refers to a standard which requires no consideration unless proved otherwise by the opposite side.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (A): Refers to a standard where a document by its stated terms displays the sought fact..
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 7
In Lalita Kumari the Supreme Court provides a timeline for the completion of preliminary inquiries by the police prior to the registration of the F.I.R. As per the Court, such an inquiry should be concluded:
In Lalita Kumari the Supreme Court provides a timeline for the completion of preliminary inquiries by the police prior to the registration of the F.I.R. As per the Court, such an inquiry should be concluded:
Updated On: July 22, 2025
- Within a period not exceeding fifteen days
- Within a period not exceeding seven days
- As expeditiously as possible but the Court did not specify a timeline
- Within such time as may be permitted by the jurisdictional Magistrate
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (A): Within a period not exceeding fifteen days.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 8
An F.I.R. is considered the first information of the commission of a cognizable offence. Where the information discloses the commission of both cognizable offences as well as non-cognizable offences as part of the same facts, such information must be treated in the following manner:
An F.I.R. is considered the first information of the commission of a cognizable offence. Where the information discloses the commission of both cognizable offences as well as non-cognizable offences as part of the same facts, such information must be treated in the following manner:
Updated On: July 22, 2025
- The entire information will be treated as disclosing cognizable offences and registered as an F.I.R.
- The police officer will sever the parts disclosing non-cognizable offences and shall only register the parts disclosing cognizable offences
- 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.
- 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.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (A): The entire information will be treated as disclosing cognizable offences and registered as an F.I.R..
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 9
The power of the police to launch an investigation is provided for under Sections 154 and 157 of Cr.P.C. The threshold to be met for launching an investigation under Section 157, according to Lalita Kumari, is
The power of the police to launch an investigation is provided for under Sections 154 and 157 of Cr.P.C. The threshold to be met for launching an investigation under Section 157, according to Lalita Kumari, is
Updated On: July 22, 2025
- Cogent and reliable information disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence.
- 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”.
- Precisely the same standard under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and the police have no discretion in the matter.
- At the same standard as for a non-cognizable complaint being scrutinised by a Judicial Magistrate.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (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”.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 10
According to the decision of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari, the police may not consider the genuineness of information disclosing the commission of a cognisable offence at the time of registering an F.I.R. What does this mean?
According to the decision of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari, the police may not consider the genuineness of information disclosing the commission of a cognisable offence at the time of registering an F.I.R. What does this mean?
Updated On: July 22, 2025
- That the informant must be believed for the purposes of registering the F.I.R.
- That the information must be taken as true for the purposes of registering the F.I.R.
- That the police cannot reject any information disclosing the commission of a cognisable offence on the basis of it being false.
- All the above
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (D): All the above.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top Questions on Administrative Law
- In which of the following cases was it held that “the tribunal has unfettered jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute raised as well as to decide the legality of an order of the Central Government, or even the opinion of TRAI or any other expert body”?
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Administrative Law
- Match the following offences with the corresponding Sections under BNS, 2023:Select the correct options:
Offenses Sections (A) Voyeurism (1) Section 77 (B) Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman (2) Section 79 (C) Stalking (3) Section 75 (D) Sexual Harassment (4) Section 78 - AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Administrative Law
- Which of the following statement best captures the key difference between a Lok Adalat and Permanent Lok Adalat?
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Administrative Law
- Which of the following statement best describes a social media intermediary?
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Administrative Law
- Which of the following rights did the Supreme Court recognise for non-minorities in the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (2002) 8 SCC 481 regarding the establishment and administration of educational institutions?
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Administrative Law
View More Questions
Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Nil Ratan Kundu and another v. Abhijit Kundu’ 2008(3) Apex Court Judgements 232 (SC), while granting the custody to the maternal grandparents observed: In our judgement, the law relating to custody of a child is fairly well settled and it is this. In deciding a difficult and complex question as to custody of minor, a Court of law should keep in mind relevant statutes and the rights flowing therefrom. But such cases cannot be decided solely by interpreting legal provisions. It is a humane problem in live in relationship and is required to be solved with human touch. A Court while dealing with custody cases, is neither bound by statutes nor by strict rules of evidence or procedure nor by precedents. In selecting proper guardian of a minor, the paramount consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child. In selecting a guardian, the Court is exercising parens patriae jurisdiction and is expected, may bound, to give due weight to a child’s ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favorable surroundings. But over and above physical comforts, moral and ethical values cannot be ignored. They are equally, or we may say, even more important, essential and indispensable consideration. If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference or judgement, the Court must consider such preference as well, though the final decision should rest with the Court as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Gaurav Nagpal v. Semedha Nagpal’-(2009)1 SCC 42, while giving paramount importance to the welfare of the child, which should include moral and ethical values, besides ethical well-being, observed as under:
When the court is confronted with conflicting demands made by the parents, each time it has to justify the demands. The Court has not only to look at the issue on legalistic basis, in such matters human angles are relevant for deciding those issues. The Court then does not give emphasis on what the parties say, it has to exercise a jurisdiction which is aimed at the welfare of the minor. As observed recently in Mausami Moitra Ganguli case, the Court has to give due weightage to the child’s ordinary contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favorable surroundings, but over and above physical comforts, the moral and ethical values have also to be noted. They are equal if not more important than the others.
(Extracts from Jaswinder Singh and Another vs Surjit Singh, AIR 2010 (NOC) 425 (P. & H.))- CLAT PG - 2025
- Family Laws
- The Companies Act, 2013 does not deal with insolvency and bankruptcy when the companies are unable to pay their debts or the aspects relating to the revival and rehabilitation of the companies and their winding up if revival and rehabilitation is not possible. In principle, it cannot be doubted that the cases of revival or winding up of the company on the ground of insolvency and inability to pay debts are different from cases where companies are wound up under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013. The two situations are not identical. Under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013, even a running and financially sound company can also be wound up for the reasons in clauses (a) to (e). The reasons and grounds for winding up under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013 are vastly different from the reasons and grounds for the revival and rehabilitation scheme as envisaged under the IBC. The two enactments deal with two distinct situations and in our opinion, they cannot be equated when we examine whether there is discrimination or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For the revival and rehabilitation of the companies, certain sacrifices are required from all quarters, including the workmen. In case of insolvent companies, for the sake of survival and regeneration, everyone, including the secured creditors and the Central and State Government, are required to make sacrifices. The workmen also have a stake and benefit from the revival of the company, and therefore unless it is found that the sacrifices envisaged for the workmen, which certainly form a separate class, are onerous and burdensome so as to be manifestly unjust and arbitrary, we will not set aside the legislation,solely on the ground that some or marginal sacrifice is to be made by the workers. We would also reject the argument that to find out whether there was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or whether the right to life under Article 21 Constitution of India was infringed, we must word by word examine the waterfall mechanism envisaged under the Companies Act, 2013, where the company is wound up in terms of grounds (a) to (e) of Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013; and the rights of the workmen when the insolvent company is sought to be revived, rehabilitated or wound up under the Code. The grounds and situations in the context of the objective and purpose of the two enactments are entirely different.
(Extracted, with edits and revision, from the judgement in Moser Baer Karamchari Union Thr. President Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Union of India and Ors, 2023 SCC Online SC 547)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Company Law
- Ahmadi, J. (as he then was) speaking for himself and Punchhi, J., endorsed the recommendations in the following words-The time is ripe for taking stock of the working of the various Tribunals set up in the country after the insertion of Articles 323-A and 323-B in the Constitution. After the incorporation of these two articles, Acts have been enacted where-under tribunals have been constituted for dispensation of justice. Sufficient time has passed, and experience gained in these last few years for taking stock of the situation with a view to finding out if they have served the purpose and objectives for which they were constituted. Complaints have been heard in regard to the functioning of other tribunals as well and it is time that a body like the Law Commission of India has a comprehensive look-in with a view to suggesting measures for their improved functioning. That body can also suggest changes in the different statutes and evolve a model on the basis whereof tribunals may be constituted or reconstituted with a view to ensuring greater independence. An intensive and extensive study needs to be undertaken by the Law Commission in regard to the Constitution of tribunals under various statutes with a view to ensuring their independence so that the public confidence in such tribunals may increase and the quality of their performance may improve.
Before parting with the case, it is necessary to express our anguish over the ineffectiveness of the alternative mechanism devised for judicial review. The judicial review and remedy are the fundamental rights of the citizens. The dispensation of justice by the tribunal is much to be desired.
(Extracted with Edits from R.K. Jain v. Union of India, 1993 (4) SCC 119)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Constitutional Laws
- The elements of tort of negligence consist in – (a) duty of care; (b) duty is owed to the plaintiff; (c) the duty has been carelessly breached. Negligence does not entail liability unless the exacts a duty in the given circumstances to observe care. Duty is an obligation recognised by law to avoid conduct fraught with unreasonable risk of damage to others. The question whether duty exists in a particular situation involves determination of law. Hence, three ingredients are necessary for the existence of a duty of care: (i) foreseeability of the damage, (ii) proximity of relationship between the parties; and (iii) whether it is “just, fair and reasonable” that the law should impose a duty of care. In Caparo Industries Plc. v. Dickman, 1990 2AC 605, the court held that breach of duty is concerned with the standard of care that ought to have been adopted in the circumstances and whether the defendant’s conduct fell below that standard i.e., whether he was careless.
The court while quoting Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum, 1997 stated that as a tort, negligence consists of legal duty to take care and breach of that duty. Duty determines whether the type of loss suffered by the plaintiff in the particular way in which to occurred can ever be actionable. The division of negligence into duty, breach and consequent damage is convenient for the purpose of exposition but it can be confusing because the issues will often overlap. The process of determining a breach of duty involves three steps: First, it is necessary to ascertain the qualities of the reasonable person, given the qualities attributed to him, would have taken in the circumstances. The factors that are permissible to take into account in this regard are prescribed by law, but the amount of care that the reasonable person would have taken is a question of fact. Thirdly, it must be determined whether the defendant took less care than the reasonable person would have taken.
(Extracts from Managing Director, Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Limited v. Deepti Singh and Ors., 2019 SC)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Law of Torts
- Article 14 of the Constitution stipulates that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India. Article 15(1) states that the State should not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Article 15(4) stipulates that nothing in Article 15 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Article 16 deals with equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Clause (1) of Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Clause (2) stipulates that no citizen shall be discriminated in or be ineligible for any employment or office under the State on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them. Clause (4) of the provision states that nothing in Article 16 shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens, which in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. The purpose of the equal opportunity principle in Article 16(1) and the reservation provision in Article 16(4) has emerged as a focal point of the jurisprudence on reservations in this Court. A discussion of the journey of the competing models of equality that the Court has espoused and their evolution over the course of the years is necessary to understand the constitutional vision on equality.
The impugned constitutional amendments by which Article 16 (4-A) and 16 (4-B) have been inserted, flow from Article 16 (4). They do not alter the structure of Article 16 (4). They retain the controlling factors or the compelling reasons which enables the State to provide for reservation keeping in mind the overall efficiency of the state administration under article 335. Sub-categorization within a class is a constitutional requirement to secure substantive equality in the event that there is a distinction between two sections of a class; Sub-classification must not lead to the exclusion of one of the categories in the class. A model that provides sufficient opportunities to all categories of the class must be adopted; and Sub-classification among a class must be on a reasonable basis.
Justice Bela Trivedi opined, in dissent, that presidential list of scheduled castes notified under Article 341 cannot be altered by the States. Any change to this list can only be made by a law enacted by Parliament. Sub-classification, according to her would amount to tampering with the Presidential List and undermine the object Article 341, which aims to eliminate political influence in the SC-ST List. Further, she emphasised the importance of adhering to the rule of plain and literal interpretation. She mentions that any preferential treatment for a sub-class within the presidential list would deprive other classes within the same category of their benefits. In the absence of executive or legislative power, state lack the competence to sub-classify castes and the benefit reserved for all SCs. Allowing states to do so would constitute a colourable exercise of power, which is impermissible under law. Justice Trivedi concluded by affirming that affirmative action by States must remain within constitutional boundaries and held that the law laid down in E.V. Chinnaiah case was correct and should be upheld.
(Extract from The State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davinder Singh & Ors. 2024 SC)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Constitutional Laws
View More Questions
CLAT PG Notification
GMC Azamgarh Admission 2025: Dates, Courses, Fees, Eligibility, SelectJuly 22, 2025GMC Azamgarh Admission 2025