Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Fir Not Hit by Sec 162 CrPC - The courts have held that statements made by an approver as an accused are not covered under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C., particularly when made in an accused capacity rather than as a witness. Such statements are instead governed by the Evidence Act (Ss. 25 & 26) and are not subject to the restrictions of Sec. 162. Additionally, police statements recorded under Sec. 161 or 162(1) do not automatically attract Sec. 162 unless they are part of the investigation process, and even then, they can be used for corroboration or contradiction under general evidentiary principles
Arun Gulabrao Gawli VS State of Maharashtra - Bombay
.Supreme Court Ruling - The Supreme Court clarified that confessional statements made before authorities like Central Excise officers are not hit by Sec. 162 Cr.P.C., emphasizing that certain confessions are admissible and not barred by this section. The Court also noted that investigations by Railway Protection Force officers under Sec. 8(1) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act do not constitute investigations under Sec. 162 Cr.P.C., thus not being subject to its restrictions 2024 0 Supreme(All) 1516.
Statements and Evidence - Section 162 does not prevent courts from examining police records or statements; omissions or contradictions between statements under Sec. 161 and depositions can be reconciled unless they are significant contradictions. The scope of Sec. 162 is limited, and it mainly restricts the use of police statements as evidence unless they meet specific criteria. FIRs and other records are sometimes excluded from Sec. 162 restrictions if they are not part of the investigation or are not recorded as formal statements under the section 2025 Supreme(Online)(All) 869, 2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 6049, 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2825, 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2388.
Application in Specific Cases - In cases involving police investigation records, the courts have permitted the use of statements recorded under Sec. 162 for purposes such as cross-examination or corroboration, provided they are not part of the formal investigation process that would otherwise be barred. For example, statements obtained with permission under Sec. 162(2) can be used to contradict witnesses or for other evidentiary purposes 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 2649, 2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 926.
Statutory and Procedural Clarifications - The courts have consistently distinguished between different types of statements: FIRs, confessions, police statements, and investigation records. While some records like FIRs are not hit by Sec. 162, statements recorded during investigation typically are, unless they fall under specific exceptions, such as confessional statements made in a different context or investigations not deemed under Sec. 162 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 38015.
Analysis and Conclusion:Statements made by an accused person in their capacity as an accused (e.g., confessions or approver statements) are generally not hit by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C., especially when recorded outside the formal investigation process or as part of proceedings under the Evidence Act. Courts have clarified that Sec. 162 primarily restricts police statements recorded during investigation from being used as evidence, but this restriction does not extend to statements made in a different capacity or recorded under other statutory provisions. Therefore, an FIR, confessional statement, or police record not obtained strictly under Sec. 162 can be admissible and not necessarily excluded from evidence based solely on Sec. 162.
In the realm of criminal law in India, the (FIR) plays a pivotal role in setting the investigation process in motion. However, a common query arises: Fir Not Hit by Sec 162 Crpc. This question delves into whether a particular report or statement qualifies as a valid FIR under (CrPC) or falls under the restrictions of , which governs statements made during police investigations. Understanding this distinction is crucial for litigants, lawyers, and anyone navigating criminal proceedings, as it impacts the evidentiary value of documents.
This blog post breaks down the legal nuances, drawing from established judicial precedents and procedural rules. Note: This is general information and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
An FIR is the earliest information about a recorded by a police officer under . It marks the initiation of the investigation process 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 149. Key requirements include:
The FIR serves as the foundation of the case and holds substantive evidentiary value, unlike statements recorded later.
restricts the use of statements made to police during an investigation. These statements:
Statements obtained after the FIR, such as , are typically treated as Section 162 statements, not as a new FIR2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 149 2011 0 Supreme(Jhk) 585. For instance, courts have held that a subsequent report or information that is obtained during investigation and not as the initial FIR is generally considered as a statement under Section 162, and cannot be treated as a new FIR 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 149 2006 0 Supreme(Jhk) 813.
If a document is recorded post-FIR, it is likely deemed a Section 162 statement with limited evidentiary value 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 149 2011 0 Supreme(Jhk) 585. Even police diary entries labeled as FIRs during investigation are often classified under Section 162 2011 0 Supreme(Jhk) 585 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 149.
Not all reports or statements fall under Section 162's ambit. Courts have clarified scenarios where an FIR or related document escapes these restrictions:
The very first information properly recorded as per Section 154 is not hit by Section 162. It is trite law that soon the information relating to commission of a is received, the police shall register the FIR and start the investigation. In such an event, the registration of FIR at a later stage will not be hit by Sec.162 Cr.P.C. 2017 0 Supreme(AP) 180.
Statements made by an accused in their capacity as an accused (e.g., confessions) are not covered under . They are governed by the (Sections 25 & 26) instead
. Fir Not Hit by Sec 162 CrPC - The courts have held that statements made by an approver as an accused are not covered under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C., particularly when made in an accused capacity rather than as a witness.
Confessional statements to authorities like Central Excise officers are not hit by . The Supreme Court has ruled that investigations by under specific acts do not attract Section 162 2024 0 Supreme(All) 1516.
Police records or omissions in can be examined by courts unless significant contradictions exist. FIRs and other records are sometimes excluded from Sec. 162 restrictions if they are not part of the investigation or are not recorded as formal statements under the section2025 Supreme(Online)(All) 869 2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 6049 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2825 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2388.
Judicial precedents provide clarity:
FIR Hit by Section 162: In one case, Even name of the person was not disclosed by PW-1 by whom the report was got written. In the present matter, FIR lodged was hit by 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 85. Similarly, Hence, the FIR registered by PW 1 is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. when the incident was already reported 2018 0 Supreme(Cal) 275.
FIR Not Hit: PW.13, who registered FIR has emphatically stated that no police personnel from Siddipet I town PS visited the scene of offence prior to the registration of FIR – confirming no Section 162 bar 2017 0 Supreme(AP) 180. Another submission noted, It is also contended that the FIR is hit by , but context showed distinctions 1996 0 Supreme(Gau) 91.
Statements Under Sec 162(2): Permission was granted to contradict witnesses, as His statement was not read over to him. The special public prosecutor sought permission to contradict the witness under
.
Statements with court permission under Section 162(2) can be used for cross-examination 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 2649 2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 926.
Key Takeaway: While many post-FIR statements are hit by Section 162, initial FIRs, accused confessions, and certain non-investigation records are not, preserving their admissibility.
Navigating whether an FIR is not hit by requires careful analysis of timing, context, and procedure. As summarized, The document in question, if not recorded as the initial FIR but obtained during investigation, is unlikely to be considered a valid FIR under . It is more appropriately classified as a Section 162 statement 1987 0 Supreme(Pat) 175 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 149.
Final Recommendations:- Always verify with original records.- Leverage court precedents for arguments.- Seek professional legal counsel.
This guide aims to demystify the issue, empowering you in legal matters. Stay informed on CrPC provisions for stronger cases.
#FIR #CrPC #Section162
The sessions Judge held that, this statement was made by the approver as an accused person and not as a witness and Sec. 162 of Cr.P.C. did not apply to the case. ... The statement approver is hit by Ss. 25 & 26 of Evidence Act. Same would be a case relevant to the matter in question. The accused are not entitled for bringing on record statements of accused Sudhir recor....
Supreme Court there can be no doubt that the view taken by the learned Magistrate on the point of Section 162 Cr.P.C. is erroneous ami the confessional statement (paper no. A-6) Ex. 17 cannot be hit by Sec. 162 Cr.P.C.”24. ... In the earlier decision it was held that the confession made by an accused before the Central Excise Officer was not hit under ....
Section 162 of the CrPC does not prevent a Judge from looking into the record of the police investigation. ... It has a limited applicability in a Court of Law as prescribed under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). 20. ... But that can happen not only in the case of an omission, but even in the case of an apparent contradiction of positive facts in....
Exhibit P.A., which was the F.I.R. and it was not hit by the provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and he has placed reliance on some authorities. ... PW9/C) would be the FIR and the statement (Ex. PW1/A) would be hit by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. 22. It was laid down by this Court in Lachhman v. ... In the fa....
Section 162 of the CrPC does not prevent a Judge from looking into the record of the police investigation. ... Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read as below: “162. Statements to police not to be signed : Use of statements in evidence. ... But that can happen not only in the case of an omission, but even in the case of an apparent contradi....
Section 162 of the CrPC does not prevent a Judge from looking into the record of the police investigation. ... But that can happen not only in the case of an omission, but even in the case of an apparent contradiction of positive facts included in the deposition and the statement under Sec. 161, Cr. P.C. ... In that regard, it was observed as below: “Desai, J. also went on to hold that i....
been stated in Sec. 162(1) proviso and Sec. 162(2) explanation of Cr. ... Chutke, learned APP for the respondent /State further submits that in view of Sec. 162 (1) proviso and the explanation 162(2) of Cr. ... Though there is an endorsement on Exh.14 the post-trap panchnama, by the learned counsel for the accused to the effect, 'th....
With the permission of the Court, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has invoked the power under proviso to sec.162 Cr.P.C. and Sec.154 of the Evidence Act. ... Ext.P2 is a portion of his statement recorded U/s.162 CrPC. It is said that Ext.P1 complaint was filed in a mistaken notion. He further stated that the matter has been settled and he has no further grievance against the acc....
His statement was not read over to him. The special public prosecutor sought permission to contradict the witness under Sec. 162(2) of Cr.P.C. Permission was granted. The witness stated that, it did not happen that the accused took out the papers of the petitions and handed over to him. ... Special Public Prosecutor sought permission to put questions to PW-2 under Sec. 162#HL_E....
But, as per the records available in the MCA portal the subject company has not filed its annual return with the complainant for the financial year 2010-2011 till now. Hence, the company and every officer of the company, who is in default shall be punishable under Sec.162 of Companies Act. ... The accused 2 to 4 are Directors of the Company, being the officers, they are in default by not complying the statutory requirement....
Even name of the person was not disclosed by PW-1 by whom the report was got written. In the present matter, FIR lodged was hit by Section 162 CrPC.
It has been strenuously argued that the incident was already reported to the police by the appellant himself as deposed by PW 15. Hence, the FIR registered by PW 1 is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. It is true that the incident which had already reported by the appellant as narrated by PW 15.
(a) It is trite law that soon the information relating to commission of a cognizable offence is received, the police shall register the FIR and start the investigation. In such an event, the registration of FIR at a later stage will not be hit by Sec.162 Cr.P.C. 20. PW.13, who registered FIR has emphatically stated that no police personnel from Siddipet I town PS visited the scene of offence prior to the registration of FIR. PW.13, who registered FIR has emphatically stated t....
The present FIR is hit by sections 161 and 162 of the Cr. P.C. He next submits that no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution which would have given credence to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses who all belonged to one family, particularly when the hostility between the two families who are full brothers is explicit. The said statement of P.W. 1 has not been produced by the prosecution. The prosecution has made improvement in the case during the tria....
Shri B Das, learned senior counsel for the appellants except appellant ' No. 10 Shri Sachindra Chandra Shib, submits that the findings of the learned trial Court are erroneous both on points of law as well as facts and these findings are unwarranted by the facts and circumstances transpired in the record. It is also contended that the FIR is hit by section 162 CrPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
