Ramsinh Bavaji Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat on 1 March, 1994
(1) No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose, save as hereinafter provided, at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made. (Emphasis supplied)
Such a factual situation has been considered by this Court in Keshar Lal and others Vs. State of Rajasthan 1997 (2) WLC (Rajasthan) 265 and after considering the decisions of the Honble Apex Court in Tapendra Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1994 (2) SCC 220; Soma Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat 1994 (2) SCC 698; Dhananjay Chatterjee alias Dhanna Vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1979 Supreme Court 135 and Ram Singh Babaji Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2488 it held that, telephonic message, giving information of a cognizable offence, is often a matter of controversy as to whether it constitutes an FIR or not. In this matter, the view of the Supreme Court is consistent that if the telephonic message is cryptic in nature and the object and purpose of giving such telephonic message is not to lodge the FIR but to request the Officer Incharge of the Police Station to reach the place of occurrence or where the dead body is lying, it cannot be treated as FIR.