What is the Difference between a General Diary Entry and an FIR?

General diary (GD) entry or Daily diary entry is made when any kind of complaint is lodged & police enter the details in their records.Thereafter,if police believe that there is some prima facie evidence of a cognizable offense being committed, it is registered as FIR.

If the complaint made is relating to non-cognizable offense, General diary entry will still be made,but thereafter,it will be entered into a non-cognizable report.General diary entry is, therefore, a stage prior to FIR or non-cognizable report.General diary entry is an internal police record,while in case of FIR or non-cognizable report,a copy of these will be provided to the Complainant.

Print Page

Whether prosecution can be quashed on ground that entry in respect of FIR is not taken in General Diary?

 In light of the discussion above, the absence of entries in the
General Diary concerning the preliminary enquiry would not
be  per se  illegal. Our attention is not drawn to any bar
under any provision of CrPC barring investigating authority
to investigate into matter, which may for some justifiable
ground, not found to have been entered in the General Diary
right after receiving the Confidential Information. It may not
be   out   of   context   to   mention   that   nothing   found   in   the
paragraph   120.8  of   the  Lalitha   Kumari   Case  (Supra),
justifies   the   conclusion   reached   by   the   High   Court   by
placing   a   skewed   and   literal   reading   of   the   conclusions
reached   by   the   Bench   therein.   It   is   well   settled   that
judgments are not legislations, they have to be read in the
context and background discussions [refer Smt. Kesar Devi
v. Union of India & Ors., (2003) 7 SCC 427]. 
18. As the concept of maintaining General Diary has its origin
under the Section 44 of Police Act of 1861 as applicable to
States, which makes it an obligation for the concerned Police
Officer   to   maintain   a   General   Diary,   but   such   non maintenance
 per   se  may   not   be   rendering   the   whole
prosecution   illegal.   However,   on   the   other   hand,   we   are
aware of the fact that such non­maintenance of General
Diary may have consequences on the merits of the case,
which is a matter of trial. Moreover, we are also aware of the
fact that the explanation of the genesis of a criminal case, in
some   cases,   plays   an   important   role   in   establishing   the
prosecution’s   case.   With   this   background   discussion   we
must observe that the binding conclusions reached in the
paragraph  120.8  of  Lalitha  Kumari  Case  (Supra) is an
obligation of best efforts  for the concerned officer to record
all   events   concerning   an   enquiry.   If   the   Officer   has   not
recorded, then it is for the trial court to weigh the effect of
the same for reasons provided therein. A court under a writ
jurisdiction or under the inherent jurisdiction of the High
Court is ill equipped to answer such questions of facts. The
treatment provided by the High Court in converting a mixed
question of law and fact concerning the merits of the case,
into a pure question of law may not be proper in light of
settled jurisprudence. 
19. Our conclusion herein is strengthened by the fact that CrPC
itself has differentiated between irregularity and illegality.
The obligation of maintenance of General Diary is part of
course of conduct of the concerned officer, which may not
itself have any bearing on the criminal trial unless some
grave prejudice going to the root of matter is shown to exist
at   the   time   of   the   trial.1
  Conspicuous   absence   of   any
provision under CrPC concerning the omissions and errors
during  investigation  also   bolsters  the  conclusion  reached
herein.2

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.775/2018

State by Lokayuktha Police Vs  H. Srinivas  
  Dated:MAY 18, 2018.

    N. V. RAMANA., J.

Print Page

Whether accused can be permitted to call general police diary?

However, in so far as General Diary is concerned, Section

  12 of the Police Act, 2011 ( Kerala ) would give an idea as

  to its purpose and intent.      It reads as follows:


              S.12. Police Station Diary:
              Every police station shall keep a general
              diary in such form as may be fixed by the
              government from time to time and record
              therein the substance of all complaints
              made, first information reports, charges,
              the names and details of complainants,
              opposite parties and all arrested persons,
              the details of the offences charged
              against them, and properties including
              weapons that may have been seized from
              their possession or otherwise.


12.Thus it is pellucid that the General Diary maintained at

  the Police Station is different from the Diary which is

  required to be maintained by the Police Officer who is

  making investigation under chapter XII of the code.


13.This misconception was taken note of by the Apex Court

  in Shamshul Kanwar V State of U.P. (AIR 1995 SC

  1748 ) and in paragraph No. 12 of the judgment has held

  that the General Diary as well as the diary maintained


  under Section 172 of the Code are essentially different.


14.What has now been sought for by the petitioner is the

  copies of the entries in the general diary maintained in the

  Police Station and not the Diary maintained by the

  investigating officer. The Station house officer of the

  Sultan Bathery Police Station was not conducting the

  investigation under Chapter XII. The embargo placed

  under Section 172 (3) of the Code will not apply to the

  General Diary maintained in the Police Station. The finding

  of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the General

  Diary maintained by the Station house officer is one

  maintained under Section 172 of the Code is clearly

  erroneous.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                     PRESENT:

                 MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

                14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016
                   Crl.MC.No. 6069 of 2016 


                SHIJU.P.T. Vs STATE OF KERALA,
           Citation: 2017 CRLJ(NOC)93 Ker

Print Page