The Supreme Court ruled that information regarding a cognizable offense must be recorded as a First Information Report (FIR) in a book, not in the General Diary maintained by the Police under the Police Act, 1861.
In Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Others (2014) 2 SCC 1, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court analyzed the interaction between Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Section 44 of the Police Act, 1861, to determine whether information disclosing the commission of a cognizable offense should be entered first in the General Diary or in a book kept by the Officer in charge of the Police Station, commonly referred to as the First Information Report (FIR). The Bench, consisting of Justices MM Sudresh and SVN Bhatti, held that such information should be first entered in the book kept by the officer in charge of the police station and not in the General Diary.
Hence, it is evident that a General Diary entry cannot precede the registration of an FIR, except in cases where a preliminary inquiry is deemed necessary,” clarified the judgment authored by Justice Sundresh.
In Lalita Kumari (para 70), the Supreme Court explained the inconsistency between Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 44 of the Police Act, 1861, regarding whether the FIR should be registered in the FIR book or in the General Diary.
Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code shall prevail over Section 44 of the Police Act, 1861 (or similar provisions in other corresponding State Police Acts or Rules), and any conflicting provisions of the latter shall be void to the extent of the inconsistency. Therefore, an FIR must be recorded in the FIR book as mandated by Section 154 of the Code. It is incorrect to suggest that information should first be recorded in the General Diary and registered as an FIR only after a preliminary inquiry, if necessary.
The bench made these observations while deciding a criminal appeal challenging the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the High Court, which had convicted the appellants for the offence of murder.
