FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

Section 154 of The Code of Criminal Procedure Code deals with registration of First Information Report
(though the Section does not use the word 'First Information Report or FIR).

Section 154(1) says every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally
to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and
be read Over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to
writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered
in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.

What are condition precedents for registering FIR?

The only condition precedent for registering an FIR is that the information should disclose a cognizable
offence.

The requirement of Section 154 of the Code is only that the report must disclose the commission of a
cognizable offence and that is sufficient to set the investigating machinery into action.

In Section 154(1) of the Code, the Legislature in its collective wisdom has carefully and cautiously used
the expression 'information' without qualifying the same as in Section 41(1)(a) or (g) of the Code
wherein the expressions, 'reasonable complaint' and 'credible information' are used. Evidently, the non-
qualification of the word 'information' in Section 154(1) unlike in Section 41(1)(a) and (g) of the Code
may be for the reason that the Police Officer should not refuse to record an information relating to the
commission of a cognizable offence and to register a case thereon 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 registration of a case.[Lalita Kumari]

In Tapan Kumar Singh Supreme Court held that it is well settled that a first information report is not an
encyclopedia, which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported.

An informant may lodge a report about the commission of an offence though he may not know the
name of the victim or his assailant. He may not even know how the occurrence took place. A first
informant need not necessarily be an eyewitness so as to be able to disclose in great detail all aspects of
the offence committed. What is of significance is that the information given must disclose the
commission of a cognizable offence and the information so lodged must provide a basis for the Police
Officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence.

At this stage it is enough if the Police Officer on the basis of the information given suspects the
commission of a cognizable offence, and not that he must be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable
offence has been committed. If he has reasons to suspect, on the basis of information received, that a
cognizable offence may have been committed, he is bound to record the information and conduct an
investigation. At this stage it is also not necessary for him to satisfy himself about the truthfulness of the
information

Is Section 154(1) mandatory?

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Case held that Registration of FIR is
mandatory under Section 154 of the Code.

There is no reason that there should be any discretion or option left with the police to register or not to
register an FIR when information is given about the commission of a cognizable offence. Every
cognizable offence must be investigated promptly in accordance with law and all information provided
under Section 154 of the Code about the commission of a cognizable offence must be registered as an
FIR so as to initiate an offence.

The legislative intent is therefore quite clear, i.e., to ensure that every cognizable offence is promptly
investigated in accordance with law. This being the legal position, there is no reason that there should
be any discretion or option left with the police to register or not to register an FIR when information is
given about the commission of a cognizable offence. Every cognizable offence must be investigated
promptly in accordance with law and all information provided under Section 154 of the Code about the
commission of a cognizable offence must be registered as an FIR so as to initiate an offence.

Procedure when Police refused to register FIR though the information revealed a Cognizable Offence.

Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the
information referred to in subsection(1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by
post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to
be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer
shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.[Section
154(3)]

Explaining Section 154(3) the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari said;

In case, an officer in charge of a police station refuses to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and to
register a case on the information of a cognizable offence reported and thereby violates the statutory
duty cast upon him, the person aggrieved by such refusal can send the substance of the information in
writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned who if satisfied that the information
forwarded to him discloses a cognizable offence, should either investigate the case himself or direct an
investigation to be made by any Police Officer subordinate to him in the manner provided by sub-section
(3) of Section 154 of the Code.

The insertion of sub-section (3) of Section 154, by way of an amendment, reveals the intention of the
Legislature to ensure that no information of commission of a cognizable offence must be ignored or not
acted upon which would result in unjustified protection of the alleged offender/accused.
What is the remedy available when the attempt under Section 154(3) also failed?

After exhausting the steps mentioned in Section 154(1) and Section 154(3) the aggrieved person can file
a complaint before the Magistrate for a direction under Section 156(3) to police to register FIR.

Section 156(3) says any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order an investigation.

But the Magistrate cannot act as a mere 'Post Office' in forwarding such a complaint for investigation
under S.156(3) CrPC which means the direction by the Magistrate for investigation under S.156(3)
should not be issued mechanically.

The Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., AIR 2015 SC 1758 observed;

"Power under S.156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the
police taking steps at the stage of S.154 of the Code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the
authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free
access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigation takes this route to
harass their fellows citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same".

In Ramdev Food Products Private Limited v. State of Gujarat while dealing with the exercise of power
under S.156(3) CrPC by the learned Magistrate, a three - Judge Bench held that:

"....the direction under S.156(3) is to be issued, only after application of mind by the Magistrate. When
the Magistrate does not take cognizance and does not find it necessary to postpone instance of process
and finds a case made out to proceed forthwith, direction under the said provision is issued. In other
words, where on account of credibility of information available, or weighing the interest of justice it is
considered appropriate to straightaway direct investigation, such a direction is issued. Cases where
Magistrate takes cognizance and postpones issuance of process are cases where the Magistrate has yet
to determine "existence of sufficient ground to proceed"."

Need to file Affidavit;

In Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., AIR 2015 SC 1758 Supreme Court held that S.156(3), Cr.P.C.
applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant.

It is also held that in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the
truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more
responsible.

"We are compelled to say so, as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without
taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more
disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory
provision which can be challenged under the framework of said Act or under Art.226 of the Constitution
of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined
to settle the scores. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under S.154(1)
and S.154(3) while filing a petition under S.156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the
application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that
an the application under S.156(3) be supported by an affidavit so that the person making the application
should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an
affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will him to
casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under S.156(3). That apart, we have already stated that
the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature
of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere,
matrimonial dispute / family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases
and the cases where there is abnormal delay / laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated
in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in
lodging of the FIR."

Preliminary Inquiry Not Required To Be Mandatorily Conducted In All Corruption Cases

State of Telangana vs. Sri Managipet @ Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy

The Supreme Court observed that a preliminary inquiry before registration of First Information Report
(FIR) is not required to be mandatorily conducted in all corruption cases. It said that the judgment in
Lalita Kumari does not state that proceedings cannot be initiated against an accused without conducting
a preliminary inquiry

TADA Offences- FIR Cannot Be Registered Without Sanction Of Competent Authority: Ebha Arjun
Jadeja vs. State Of Gujarat

The Supreme Court held that an FIR with respect to commission of an offence under Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act cannot be recorded by the police under Section 154 CrPC without
sanction of the competent authority. The bar under Section 20-A(1) of TADA Act applies to information
recorded under Section 154 of CrPC, the bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha
Bose held while discharging an accused

What are the options before the Magistrate on receipt of a Complaint seeking a direction under
Section 156(3) CrPC?

Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee And Ors vs Union Of India held that when the information is laid
with the police, but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant can under Section 190 read with
Section 200 of the Code lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance
of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of
the Code. In case the Magistrate, after recording evidence, finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing
process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate into offence
under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose
any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the
Code. In case he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is
empowered to take cognizance of the offence and could issue process to the accused.

In S.156 (3), Cr.P.C., the word used is "May". The use of the word "Shall" in S.154(3), Cr.P.C. and the use
of word "May" in S.156(3), Cr.P.C. should make the intention of the legislation clear. If the legislature
intended to close options for the Magistrate, they could have used the word "Shall" as has been done in
S.154(3), Cr.P.C. Instead, use of the word "May" is, therefore, very significant, and gives a very clear
indication, that the Magistrate has the discretion in the matter, and can, in appropriate cases, refuse to
order registration.

Magistrate may direct the police to register a case and investigate or he may treat the same as a
complaint and proceed in matter contemplated in Chapter XV of Code. He should apply his judicial mind.
Magistrate if takes cognizance, may proceed to follow the procedure provided in Chapter XV of Code.
Magistrate may either take cognizance under S.190 or may forward the complaint to police under
S.156(3) for investigation".

In the case of Sukhwasi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad HC held that the Magistrate is not bound
to order for registration of an FIR in all cases where a cognizable offence has been disclosed and the
Magistrate has authority to treat it as a complaint.

Is police bound to register FIR on receipt an order under S.156(3)?

In Suresh Chandra Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another the Supreme Court held that even if a
magistrate does not say in so many words while directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code
that an FIR should be registered, it is the duty of the officer-in-charge of the police station to register the
FIR regarding the cognizable offence disclosed by the complaint because that police officer could take
further steps contemplated in Chapter XII of the Code only thereafter.

In Mohd. Yousuf vs Smt. Afaq Jahan Supreme Court held as follows;

"The clear position therefore is that any Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence, can
order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. If he does so, he is not to examine the
complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence there in .For the purpose of
enabling the police to start investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an
FIR. There is nothing illegal in doing so."
Can a person approach the High Court against the refusal of police to registering FIR?

In Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, 2016 (6) SCC 277, the Supreme Court has
referred to Sakiri Vasu and held that if a person has a grievance that the police have not registered his
complaint, or having registered it, they have not investigated it properly, then the aggrieved person's
remedy "is not to go to the High Court Under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the
Magistrate concerned under S.156(3) of the Code."

"What we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions
praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation. We are of
the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ
petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we
have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the concerned
Magistrate Under S.156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if
prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper
investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation.".

Madras High Court's Directions on 156(3)

1. A petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for a direction to register an FIR on the complaint of the
petitioner circumventing the time table prescribed by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari-IV and V is not
maintainable.

2. This Court directs all the Station House Officers in the State of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory
of Puducherry to receive any complaint relating to the commission of cognizable offence by a common
man and if the Station House Officer wants to conduct a preliminary enquiry, he shall immediately issue
a CSR receipt (in case of Tamil Nadu) or issue a separate receipt (in case of Union Territory of
Puducherry) to the complainant and after making the necessary entries in the Station General Diary, as
directed by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari-IV and V, conduct preliminary enquiry. In Lalita Kumari-
IV, the Supreme Court has directed that after conducting preliminary enquiry, if the police come to the
conclusion that no FIR need be registered, a duty is cast upon the police to furnish a copy of the closure
report to the complainant. After getting the closure report, it is open to the complainant to file a petition
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or private complaint under Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C.
disclosing the facts and persuading the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence. Such a
petition/private complaint should disclose the closure report of the police. After taking cognizance of
the offence, the Magistrate can also order police investigation under Section 202, Cr.P.C. to a limited
extent. The closure report cannot be subject to judicial review under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

3. If the Station House Officer refuses to receive the complaint, the complainant shall send the
complaint together with a covering letter to the Superintendent of Police/Deputy Commissioner of
Police by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due under Section 154(3), Cr.P.C.
4. If there is inaction on the part of the Station House Officer and the Superintendent of Police,
the complainant is at liberty to move the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

5. The complaint shall be given to the Magistrate either in Tamil or in English in the form of a
representation in first person addressed directly to the Magistrate.

6. The complaint shall be accompanied by an affidavit as mandated by the Supreme Court in

7. On receipt of the complaint, the Magistrate shall pass orders thereon within 15 days, either
issuing directions or dismissing the petition.

8. If the Magistrate decides to order police investigation, he should pass a judicial order to that
effect in the record sheet.

9. A copy of the order, together with original complaint and copy of the affidavit, shall be
forwarded by the Magistrate to the jurisdictional police officer for investigation.

10. If the police officer does not register FIR within a period of one week from the date of receipt of
the Magistrate's order, the Magistrate shall initiate prosecution against him under Section 21 read with
Section 44 of the District Police Act before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, as the case may be.

11. If no FIR is registered by the police within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the
order of the Magistrate under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., the complainant can approach this Court under
Section 482, Cr.P.C.

12. If the police fail to complete the preliminary enquiry within six weeks as mandated by the
Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari-V, the complainant can approach this Court under Article 144 read with
Section 482, Cr.P.C.

13. The aforesaid petition under Article 144 read with Section 482, Cr.P.C. must be accompanied by
an affidavit sworn to by the complainant with satisfactory materials to show that the police have not
completed the preliminary enquiry within six weeks, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Lalita
Kumari-V. In such a petition, this Court will not read the complaint, but, issue directions to the police to
register an FIR on the complaint for the very failure of the police to follow the mandates of Lalita
Kumari-IV and V. The Registry of this Court shall not number the petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
seeking a direction to register an FIR unless it is accompanied by an affidavit containing the above
details.

14. In suitable cases, this Court shall also direct disciplinary action to be taken against the police
officer for the violation of the mandates of Lalita Kumari - IV and V. xv If the police officer fails to register
the FIR pursuant to the directions of this Court, he will be liable for contempt of Court, besides facing
disciplinary action.

15. The aggrieved party can also approach the local Legal Services Authority and the Authority shall
take immediate steps to ensure that an FIR is registered or CSR receipt issued to the complainant.

16. Every police station shall have a board giving the name and telephone number of the local Legal
Services Authority.

Can a police register a FIR based on the confessionL statement of accused? What's it evidentiary value

Section 154 of The Code of Criminal Procedure Code deals with registration of First Information Report
(though the Section does not use the word 'First Information Report or FIR).

It says that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an
officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be
read Over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing
as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book
to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.

The Section further says an Officer in charge of a police station can register every information relating to
the commission of a cognizable offence irrespective of the status of the informant.

The Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in the Lalita Kumari Case held that registration of FIR is
mandatory under Section 154 of the Code if the information discloses commission of a cognizable
offence.

So police can register the FIR based on the information given by any person including an accused
irrespective of whether his statement amounts to confession or not.

Evidentiary Value of FIR

FIR as such is not substantive evidence. It may be used to corroborate the informant under S.157 of the
Evidence Act or to contradict him under S.145 of the Act, if the informant is called as a witness.

Evidentiary Value of Confessional FIR

The Supreme Court had examined the question of evidentiary of value of a confessional FIR in Aghnoo
Nagesia v. State of Bihar [AIR 1966 SC 119]
In the above case Aghnoo Nagesia was charged under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code for murdering his
aunt Ratni, her daughter, Chamin, her son inlaw. Somra and Dilu, son of Somra.

The prosecution case was that on August 11, 1963 between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. the appellant murdered
Somra in a forest known as Dungijharan Hills and later Chamin in Kesari Garha field and then Ratni and
Dilu in the house of Ratni at village Jamtoli.

The first information was lodged by accused himself at police station Palkot. The information was
reduced to writing by the officer in charge. Sub Inspector and Accused affixed his left thumb impression
on the report. The Sub Inspector immediately arrested him.

The next day, the Sub Inspector in the company of the accused went to the house of Ratni, where he
pointed out the dead bodies of Ratni and Dilu and also a place in the orchard of Ratni covered with
bushes and grass, where he had concealed a tangi. He then took the Sub Inspector and witnesses to
Kasiari garha khet and pointed out the dead body of Chamin lying in a ditch covered with Ghunghu.

On behalf of the accused, it was contended that the entire statement is a confession made to a police
officer and is not provable against the appellant, having regard to S.25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
On behalf of the prosecution it is contended that S.25 protects only those portions of the statement
which disclose the killings by the appellant and the rest of the statement is not protected by S.25.

Law relating to confessions in Evidence Act.

The Indian Evidence Act does not define "confession". For a long time, the Courts in India adopted the
definition of "confession" given in Art. 22 of Stephen's Digest of the Law of Evidence.

According to that definition a confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with
crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime. This definition was discarded by
the Judicial Committee in Pakala Narayanaswami v. Emperor, 66 Ind App 66 at p. 81: (AIR 1939 PC 47
at p. 52). Lord Atkin observed: ".......no statement that contains self-exculpatory matter can amount to
confession, if the exculpatory statement is of some fact which if true would negative the offence alleged
to be confessed. Moreover, a confession must either admit in terms the offence, or at any rate
substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even
a conclusively incriminating fact, is not of itself a confession, e.g., an admission that the accused is the
owner of and was in recent possession of the knife or revolver which caused a death with no
explanation of any other man's possession." These observations received the approval of this Court in
Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab (1), 1953 SCR 94 at p. 104; (AIR 1952 SC 354 at p. 357). In State of
U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya, 1961 (1) SCR 14 at p. 21: (AIR 1960 SC 1125 at pp. 1128-1129). Shah, J.,
referred to a confession as a statement made by a person stating or suggesting the inference that he has
committed a crime.

A confession may be defined as an admission of the offence by a person charged with the offence. A
statement which contains self-exculpatory matter cannot amount to a confession, if the exculpatory
statement is of some fact which, if true, would negative the offence alleged to be confessed. If an
admission of an accused is to be used against him, the whole of it should be tendered in evidence and if
part of the admission is exculpatory and part inculpatory, the prosecution is not at liberty to use in
evidence the inculpatory part only. (See : Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar [AIR 1966 SC 119],
Hanumant Govind v. State of M.P. 1952 SCR 1091 at p. 1111: (AIR 1952 SC 343 at p. 350) and 1953 SCR
94 : (AIR 1952 SC 354).

If proof of the confession is excluded by any provision of law such as S.24, S.25 and S.26 of the Evidence
Act, the entire confessional statement in all its parts including the admissions of minor incriminating
facts must also be excluded, unless proof of it is permitted by some other section under as S.27 of the
Evidence Act. Little substance and content would be left in S.24, 25 and 26 if proof of admission of
incriminating facts in a confessional statement is permitted.

Sometimes, a single sentence in a statement may not amount to a confession at all. Take a case of a
person charged under S.304A of the Indian Penal Code and a statement made by him to a police officer
that "I was drunk: I was driving a car at a speed of 80 miles per hour. I could see A on the road at a
distance of 80 yards; I did not blow the horn: I made no attempt to stop the car; the car knocked down
A". No single sentence in this statement amounts to a confession; but the statement read as a whole
amounts to a confession of an offence under S.304A of the Indian Penal Code, and it would not be
permissible to admit in evidence each sentence separately as a non-confessional statement.

Again, take a case where a single sentence in a statement amounts to an admission of an offence. 'A'
states "I struck 'B' with a tangi and hurt him". In consequence of the injury 'B' died. 'A' committed an
offence and is chargeable under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. Unless he brings his case
within one of the recognised exceptions, his statement amounts to an admission of an offence, but the
other parts of the statement such as the motive, the preparation, the absence of provocation,
concealment of the weapon and the subsequent conduct, all throw light upon the gravity of the offence
and the intention and knowledge of the accused, and negatives the right of private defence, accident
and other possible defences. Each and every admission of an incriminating fact contained in the
confessional statement is part of the confession.

In the Aghnoo Nagesia case mentioned above, after a detailed discussion, the SC held as follows :

If the first information report is given by the accused to a police officer and amounts to a confessional
statement, proof of the confession is prohibited by S.25. The confession includes not only the admission
of the offence but all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence contained in the
confessional statement. No part of the confessional statement is receivable in evidence except to the
extent that the ban of S.25 is lifted by S.27.

Can a part of the information leading to the discovery admissible under Section 27 Evidence Act?

The Aghnoo Nagesia case has answered the above question as follows;
"S.27 applies only to information received from a person accused of an offence in the custody of a police
officer. Now, the Sub Inspector stated he arrested the appellant after he gave the first information
report leading to the discovery. Prima facie, therefore, the appellant was not in the custody of a police
officer when he gave the report, unless it can be said that he was then in constructive custody. On the
question whether a person directly giving to police officer information which may be used as evidence
against him may be deemed to have submitted himself to the custody of the police officer within the
meaning of S.27, there is conflict of opinion. See the observations of Shah, J. and Subba Rao, J. in (1961)
1 SCR 14 : (AIR 1960 SC 1125). For the purposes of the case, we shall assume that the appellant was
constructively in police custody and therefore, the information contained in the first information report
leading to the discovery of the dead bodies and the tangi is admissible in evidence".

Can An accused directly approach the Magistrate to record his confession?

A two Judge Bench of Justices KT Thomas and RP Sethi considered this question in Mahabir Singh vs
State Of Haryana.

In this case an accused in a murder case barged into a courtroom on his own during the morning hours,
exhibiting a knife and wanting the Magistrate to record his confession.

The Court held that an accused person can appear before a Magistrate and it is not necessary that such
accused should be produced by the police for recording the confession. But it is necessary that such
appearance must be in the course of an investigation under Chapter XII of the Code. If the Magistrate
does not know that he is concerned in a case for which investigation has been commenced under the
provisions of Chapter XII, it is not permissible for him to record the confession. If any person simply
barges into the court and demands the Magistrate to record his confession as he has committed a
cognizable offence, the course open to the Magistrate is to inform the police about it. The police in turn
has to take the steps envisaged in Chapter XII of the Code.It may be possible for the Magistrate to
record a confession if he has reason to believe that investigation has commenced and that the person
who appeared before him demanding recording of his confession is concerned in such case. Otherwise
the court of a Magistrate is not a place into which all and sundry can gatecrash and demand the
Magistrate to record whatever he says as self-incriminatory.