2. BARE ACT LANGUAGE EXPLAINED
(1) If from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to
suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate,
he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of
such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his
subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or
special order prescribe in this , to proceed to the spot to investigate the facts and circumstances
of the case, and if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender.
AS SOON AS
FLOW CHART FOR EASY EXPLAINATION
3. SECTION 157 CONTINUED…
(a)When information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person
by name and the case is not a serious nature, the officer in charge of a police station need
not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the
(b)If it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for
entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case.
NO NEED TO
PROCEED TO THE
NO NEED FOR
FLOW CHART FOR EASY EXPLANATION
4. SECTION 157 CONTINUED…
Provided further that in relation to an offence of rape, the recording of statement of the victim
shall be conducted at the residence of the victim or in the place of her choice and as far as
practicable by a woman police officer in the presence of her parents or guardian or near
relatives or social worker of the locality.
POLICE OFFICER INVESTIGATE
WITH PARENTS OR
WOMEN SOCIAL WORKER
FLOW CHART FOR EASY EXPLANATION
5. SECTION 157 CONTINUED…
(2) In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to the sub-section (1), the
officer in charge of the police station shall in his reasons for not fully complying with the
requirements of that sub-section, and, in the case mentioned in clause (b) of the said prescribed
by the State Government, the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be
IN EASY WORDS
If the police officer has not given the reasons for not complying investigation of a case fully then he
has to mention it as per the State Government rules stating why he did not investigate the case.
6. POINTS TO REMEMBER
• Section 157 applies upon both cognizable offence and non cognizable offence. In case of non cognizable
offence the permission of Magistrate is firstly required under Section 155(2) and thereafter the proceedings
of Section 157 read with Section 155(3) will apply.
• The words ‘or otherwise’ are wide enough to include every source of information other than that furnished
and recorded under Section 157.
• The expression ‘forthwith’ connotes within a reasonable time and without any unreasonable unexpected
• The report which is being sent to the magistrate is termed as the Occurrence Report. The police officer
acting under Section 157(1) is required to send a report to the magistrate having jurisdiction over the matter,
stating that a cognizable offence is suspected to have been committed and that he has taken up the
investigation himself or has deputed one of his subordinates to investigate the case. The object of the report
is to enable the magistrate to have an early information of any serious case so that he can act himself if need
• Section 157 puts duty on a police officer, officer-in-charge of a police station, to investigate the offence to
which he gets information. This duty further gets mandate from Section 23 of Police Act, 1861.
7. POINTS TO REMEMBER CONTINUED…
• There is no principle and binding authority to hold that the moment a competent police officer, on the
basis of information received makes out a FIR incorporating his name as the informant, he forfeits his right
to investigate. The question of bias would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it is
not proper to lay down a board and unqualified proposition.
• There is some discretion allowed to a police officer acting under this Section. If the officer in-charge of a
police station is of the opinion or if it is so appears to him, that there is no sufficient ground for an
investigation, he shall not investigate the case.
• Where the police officer does not proceed with the investigation of the case on receipt of the FIR he shall
record reasons for not fully complying with the requirements of this Section.. And shall also forthwith
notify to the informant, was also made on disclosure by accused. It was held that accused cannot be
acquitted only because he was not named in FIR.
8. CASES RELATED TO THIS SECTION
PALA SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 1972
The purpose is to ensure that the Judicial Magistrate should come to know that a particular crime has
been committed in his jurisdiction and also the police officer will be made accountable to the Judicial
magistrate that if he is not investigating. Most importantly the Judicial Magistrate will get a copy of FIR
and thus, he will be able to get a check upon any manipulation made by the Police officer in the FIR.
This provision is really designed to keep the magistrate informed of the investigation of a cognizable
offence so as to be able to control the investigation and if necessary give appropriate direction under
LALITA KUMARI vs. STATE OF U.P. AIR 2014
The Court contemplates two kinds of FIRs. The duly signed FIR under Section 154(1) is by the informant
to the concerned officer at police station. The second kind of FIR could be which is regarded by the
police itself on any information received other than by way of an informant under Section 157(1) and
even this information has to be duly recorded and the copy should be sent to the magistrate forth with.
9. CASES CONTINUED…
OM PRAKASH vs. STATE AIR 1974
Section 157 provides the manner in which investigation is to be conducted where the commission of a
cognizable offence is suspected and authorities an officer-in-charge of a police station not to investigate
if he considers that there is no sufficient ground for such investigation. Further, this section requires
that immediate intimation of every complaint/ information of the commission of cognizable offence
shall be sent to the magistrate having jurisdiction. Thus, it regulates the procedure for investigation.
ISHWAR SINGH vs. STATE OF U.P. AIR 1976
The Extraordinary Delay in sending the FIR is a circumstance which provides a legitimate basis for
suspecting that the report was recorded much later than the stated date and about affording sufficient
time to the prosecution to introduce improvements and embellishments and set up a distorted version
of the occurrence.
SARWAN SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 1976
Cogent and reasonable explanation for the delay in dispatch of FIR is not a circumstance which can
throw out the prosecution case in its entirety.
10. CASES CONTINUED…
SIDDHARTH VASHISHT vs. STATE OF DELHI AIR 2010
Delay in examination of witnesses has been held to be not a ground to throw away the testimony of the
BIJOY SINGH vs. STATE OF BIHAR AIR 2002
The magistrate is under a duty on receiving copies of FIR, particularly those relating to heinous kinds, such
as murder, to know the date and time of receipt.
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT GURU SWAROOP vs. SRIVASTAVA AIR 2006
The Supreme Court has held that issuance of show-cause notice to investigating agency by the High Court
does not necessarily mean that further investigation cannot be done.
RAM RAO vs. STATE AIR 1996
Delay in dispatch of the FIR to the magistrate would not affect the prosecution case unless any prejudice
was caused to the accused on account of such delay.
KIRTAN BHUYAN vs. STATE OF ORRISA AIR 1992
The investigating officer need not follow each and every suggestion made during investigation.