telephonic message by PW12 recorded at the police station should have
been treated as FIR. We have been taken through the said message which is
to the effect that A5 and other accused assaulted the complainant party.
Learned counsel relied upon the observation in Lalita Kumari (supra) to
the effect that a GD Entry can also be treated as FIR in an appropriate case.
From the said observation, it cannot be laid down that every GD Entry or
every cryptic information must be treated as FIR. In Anand Mohan versus
State of Bihar25 while referring to Section 154 Cr.P.C., this Court observed
that every cryptic information, even if not signed by the person giving the
information, cannot be treated as FIR. The information should sufficiently
disclose the nature of the offence and the manner in which the offence was
committed. It was observed :
“50. In Sk. Ishaque v. State of Bihar [(1995) 3 SCC 392] Gulabi
Paswan gave a cryptic information at the police station to the effect
that there was a commotion at the village as firing and brickbatting
was going on and this Court held that this cryptic information did not
even disclose the commission of a cognizable offence nor did it
disclose who were the assailants and such a cryptic statement of
Gulabi Paswan cannot be treated to be an FIR within the meaning of
Section 154 CrPC.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1516 OF 2011
BHAGWAN JAGANNATH MARKAD
& ORS.
V
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Dated:OCTOBER 04, 2016.
Citation: 2017 CRLJ 578 SC
