Solution

In State of AP Vs Punati Ramune and others, the court held that “Any lack of territorial jurisdiction should not have prevented the constable from recording information about cognizable offence and forwarding the same to the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which the crime was said to have been committed. In this case where the constable refused to lodge the FIR by the informant who was the nephew of the deceased and an eye witness of the crime on the grounds of jurisdictional limitations, the court observed the failure of duty of the police constable and emphasized on his legal obligation to record the information and then transfer it to the competent police station. State of Andhra Pradesh v. V.V. Panduranga Rao - In this case, supreme court held that, “If the information about the offence is given on telephone and the information is non-cryptic then such information is not to lodge FIR but to request the officer incharge of the police station to reach the place of occurrence. On the other hand if the information given on telephone is not cryptic and on the basis of that information the officer in charge is prima facie satisfied about the commission of a cognizable offence and proceeds from the police station after recording such information to investigate such offence then any statement made by any person in respect of the said offence including details about the participants shall be deemed to be a statement made by a person to the police officer in the course of investigation covered by Section 162 of Code. That statement cannot be treated as FIR. To put it differently any telephonic information about the commission of cognizable offence irrespective of the nature of details of such information cannot be treated as FIR.