(1) Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may, whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or under any other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial:
Provided that any confession or statement made under this sub-section may also be recorded by audio-video electronic means in the presence of the advocate of the person accused of an offence:
Provided further that no confession shall be recorded by a police officer on whom any power of a Magistrate has been conferred under any law for the time being in force.
(2) The Magistrate shall, before recording any such confession, explain to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, it may be used as evidence against him; and the Magistrate shall not record any such confession unless, upon questioning the person making it, he has reason to believe that it is being made voluntarily.
(3) If at any time before the confession is recorded, the person appearing before the Magistrate states that he is not willing to make the confession, the Magistrate shall not authorise the detention of such person in police custody.
(4) Any such confession shall be recorded in the manner provided in section 281 for recording the examination of an accused person and shall be signed by the person making the confession; and the Magistrate shall make a memorandum at the foot of such record to the following effect:—
“I have explained to (name) that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him and I believe that this confession was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing, and was read over to the person making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by him.
(Signed) A. B.
Magistrate.”
(5) Any statement (other than a confession) made under sub-section (1) shall be recorded in such manner hereinafter provided for the recording of evidence as is, in the opinion of the Magistrate, best fitted to the circumstances of the case; and the Magistrate shall have power to administer oath to the person whose statement is so recorded.
(5A) (a) In cases punishable under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, subsection (1) or sub-section (2) of section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB, section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the Judicial Magistrate shall record the statement of the person against whom such offence has been committed in the manner prescribed in sub-section (5), as soon as the commission of the offence is brought to the notice of the police:
Provided that if the person making the statement is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, the Magistrate shall take the assistance of an interpreter or a special educator in recording the statement:
Provided further that if the person making the statement is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, the statement made by the person, with the assistance of an interpreter or a special educator, shall be videographed.
(b) A statement recorded under clause (a) of a person, who is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, shall be considered a statement in lieu of examination-in-chief, as specified in section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) such that the maker of the statement can be cross-examined on such statement, without the need for recording the same at the time of trial.
(6) The Magistrate recording a confession or statement under this section shall forward it to the Magistrate by whom the case is to be inquired into or tried.
Month: January 2021
Kirti Vashisht Vs State and Ors on 29 Nov 2019
Delhi High Court passed this order based on Lalita Kumari.
16. Learned APP has fairly conceded that as per the contents of the complaint, cognizable offence is made out. Thus, even on the first complaint made to Police Station, Najafgarh, the FIR was supposed to be registered. As per section 154 Cr.P.C., if any information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is received by any Police Station, the said Police Station is duty bound to register the FIR. However, if the crime is not occurred in the jurisdiction of the said Police Station, then after registering the ‘Zero FIR’, the same has to be transferred to the concerned Police Station for investigation, where the offence has been committed. However, neither this happened in the Police Station Najafgarh nor thereafter in Police Station Baba Hari Das Nagar and also nor in Police Station Kapashera as well.
17. It is not in dispute that the provision of ‘Zero FIR‟ came up as a recommendation in the Justice Verma Committee Report, in the new Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 after the heinous ‘Nirbhaya Case’ of December, 2012. The provision says: “A Zero FIR can be filed in any police station by the victim, irrespective of their residence or the place of occurrence of crime.”
18. It is also not in dispute that the practice of ‘Zero FIR‟ is prevalent throughout India from the last many years. Thus, the Police Station of Kapashera, Najafgarh and Baba Hari Das Nagar were also aware about the said practice but none of the Police Stations till date have registered the case on the complaint of respondent no.7 whereas admittedly, cognizable offence has been committed as per the complaint of respondent no.7. Thus, the complainant/respondent no.7 was compelled to run from pillar to post due to inaction of the Police Stations mentioned above.
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Punati Ramulu and Ors on 19 Feb 1993
One of the earliest Judgments around Zero FIR.
Citations : [1993 AIR SC 2644], [1994 SCC SUPP 1 590], [1993 CRLJ SC 3684], [1994 SCC CRI 1 734], [1993 JT SUPPL SC 531]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1289339/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac7fe4b014971140f064
Umapathi S Vs State of Karnataka on 19 Sep 2019
High Court of Karnataka directed (forced) the State Government to issue a advisory through DGP of the State regarding implementation of Zero FIR.
Zero FIR Case Laws/ Judgments
Here is a list of judgments from Supreme Court and various High Courts and Legislative/Police Circulars, which talk about a concept called as Zero FIR, meaning register FIR first and then transfer it to appropriate Police Station in which territorial limits the alleged offence occurred. If FIR is not registered, IPC 166A proceedings can be initiated against the Police officers. More actions available here.
Case Laws or Judgments of Courts
- State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Punati Ramulu and Ors on 19 Feb 1993
- Satvinder Kaur vs State (Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 5 October, 1999
- Ramesh Kumari Vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) And Ors on 21 February, 2006
- Bimla Rawal Vs. State on 1 January, 2008
- Manju Dutta Vs The State & Ors. on 29 January, 2013
- Lalita Kumari Vs Govt. of U.P. and Ors on 12 November, 2013
- Umapathi S Vs State of Karnataka on 19 Sep 2019
- Kirti Vashisht Vs State and Ors on 29 Nov 2019
Legislative / Police Circulars
- Ministry of Home Affairs Dt: 2013-05-10 :
- Ministry of Home Affairs Dt: 2015-10-12 :
- DGP Office, Karnataka, Dt: 2019-11-26 :
Zaid Pathan and Ors Vs State of M.P. on 22 Dec 2020
Even though the MP High Court held the law point correctly, IMHO, the said FIR which was saved by this Court, has no future, unless it was treated as a FIR registered u/s 154 CrPC, which is what the case is here.
From Para 15 16
15/ The submission of counsel for the petitioners is that as per the procedure prescribed in Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., for the purpose of the offence under Section 188 of the IPC a public servant is required to file a complaint before the competent court and, therefore, the FIR cannot be registered.
16/ Such an argument advanced by counsel for the petitioners is devoid of any merit. A bare reading of Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. reveals that the provisions contained in the sub-section are attracted at the stage of taking cognizance. There is no bar under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of registration of FIR, therefore, FIR for an offence under Section 188 of the IPC can be registered by the police and after investigation on the basis of the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, a competent public servant can file the complaint before the concerned court. What is barred under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. is that after investigating the offence under Section 188 of the IPC, the police officer cannot file a final report in the Court and the Court cannot take cognizance on that final report, as at that stage the bar contained in Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. comes
into operation.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/zaid-pathan-and-others-vs-state-of-m-p
Mukesh @ Lakshminarayan Vs State of M.P. on 31 Dec 2020
High Court of Madhya Pradesh held illegal the acts of Notaries in the State, as follows.
Not only the accused persons who have conspired in performing the forged marriage of the complainant, but the Notary who executed the marriage agreement is also equally responsible in this case. The job of the Notary is defined under the Notary Act. He is not supposed to perform the marriage by executing documents. Had he properly guided and refused to execute the marriage agreement to the complainant, then the present offence would not have been committed. This Court is repeatedly receiving the cases of forged marriage performed by the Notary, therefore, the Law Department of the State is required to look into these matters as to how the Notaries and Oath Commissioners are involving themselves in executing the document in respect of the marriage, divorce, etc, which are not permissible under the law. Neither the Notary is authorised to perform the marriage nor competent to execute the divorce deed. Therefore, strict guidelines are required to be issued to the Notaries and oath commissioners for not executing such type of deed, failing which their licence would be terminated. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary, Law Department of State of M.P. For taking action in the matter.
Citations :
Other sources :
IPC 188 – Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant
Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of
obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any persons lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both;
and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Explanation.—It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm.
N.Prasad Vs Harithalakshmi on 20 Jul 2020
Based on Inderjit Singh Grewal here, PWDV Act is subject to CrPC 468, so complaint filed after 1 year are time barred, hence the DVC is quashed by Madras High Court.
Note: On the request of respondent-wife, I have removed the name and address details of the litigants on page-1 of the judgment below. No other modifications were made to it.
Citations : [2020 SCC OnLine Mad 1767]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/108935797/
Evidence Act Sec 106 – Burden of Proving Fact Especially Within Knowledge
When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
