TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL

TIRUCHIRAPPALLI

INTERNSHIP DIARY

Student Name: Rohan Girish Raj. Reg. No: BC0140047

Date: 26th June 2017
Year of study: Third Year B.com. LL.B
Internship type: District Court Internship
Organizations Name: Adv. N. Bhaskaran Nair (interned from 5th
December 2016 20th December 2016) & Adv. D.V. Narayanan (interned
from 12th June 2017 - 26th June 2017).
Tel.: e-mail:
Contact persons in organizations: Adv. N. Bhaskaran Nair & Adv. D.V.
Narayanan
Tel.: e-mail:
Period of Internship: 30 days [2 sessions (15 days each) - 5th December 2016
20th December 2016 & 12th June 2017 - 26th June 2017]
Internship Approved/Internship NOT Approved

Internal supervisors signature Date:

External supervisor certificate submitted

Internship diary submitted

 INTERNSHIP DIARY

(FIRST SESSION) FROM 5TH DECEMBER 2016 TO 20TH DECEMBER 2016

DATE: 5TH DECEMBER 2016 DAY: MONDAY

On the first day, a bail petition for a case which was filed in the Sessions court, Kozhikode,
was being discussed, which was filed on 3/12/2016. The petitioner was accused of
committing offences punishable under sections 9(f), 9(m), read with section 10 of the
Protection Of Children against Sexual Offences Act (POSCO Act). The case was filed against
him at the Payyoli police station, Kozhikode. In the case, it was alleged that the petitioner,
who was working as a teacher in a school in Kottakkal, took a girl, aged 8 years old, studying
in the third standard in the same school, to the store room of the school (where text books are
usually stored for distribution) under the pretext that he would give a book to her and
sexually assaulted her and hence committed the above mentioned offences. According to the
petitioner, the girl and her friends had approached him in the store to purchase English and
Sanskrit books. The petitioner had refused to provide the girl with a Sanskrit book as the
subject was not in the syllabus and the girl was not a Sanskrit student. The petitioner stressed
on the fact that he cannot provide the book and in such a situation he can do so only with the
permission of the head teacher or when a request is made by the class teacher. The students
started to protest and the petitioner closed the store room after sending the students out of the
room. The petitioner told the alleged victim girl that he would report the alleged matter to the
head master as she was responsible for created such a situation in the store room which
amounted to indiscipline. The petitioner later came to know that the students who protested in
the store room for not giving the Sanskrit text book to the victim girl belonged to a students
union known as SFI. The union is the student wing of the CPI(M), a major party in the ruling
LDF Government in Kerala. The petitioner is a supporter of the Indian National Congress
party and in his defence, has argued that the SFI students had reported this matter to the local
leaders and the party leaders had made use of this opportunity and urged the mother of the
alleged victim to file a false complaint against the petitioner by making use of the POCSO
Act, which is often being abused nowadays. The petitioner therefore has issued a request to
release him on bail as he has had an unblemished career as a teacher and also in his personal
and public life. The petitioner also assured the honourable court that he will cooperate with
the investigation of the case and will not perform any action which interferes with justice.
DATE: 6TH DECEMBER 2016 DAY: TUESDAY

On the second day, a case was discussed where, the petitioner who was a commercial pilot,
approached the high court of Kerala, Ernakulam to seek protection for his life and for the
properties claimed by him, from the respondents who were his in-laws. The primary question
in this case was whether the police protection directions sought in respect to the life of the
petitioner and his property can be granted. Regarding the protection of the property, a suit for
specific performance for a contract for sale has already been filed by the respondents before
the subordinate Judges court in Koyilandi, Kozhikode district. In this suit, the first defendant
is a company which is undergoing liquidation proceedings. The alleged sale was executed by
a person who purchased the property from the company in an auction sale which was
conducted by the company court. The petitioner has filed for impleadment in the said suit as a
supplementary defendant. It had come into the courts notice that the subordinate judge has
not taken this impleadment into notice so far. It was found out that there is a scramble for
possession between the petitioner and respondent over the property. Since the Koyilandi sub
court is already in charge of this issue, the issue was to be considered by the sub court itself.
The subordinate judge was directed to take the impleadment at the earliest and hear both
sided and pass orders on this issue within 10 days of receiving the judgement from the high
court. Regarding the life of the petitioner, the court directed the sub inspector of police to
receive any petition from the petitioner in future, complaining of his threat to life and was
directed to hold necessary enquiry on such a petition and should take appropriate action to
protect the life and limbs of the petitioner and his workers, if the facts revealed in the enquiry
are genuine.

DATE: 7TH DECEMBER 2016 DAY: WEDNESDAY

A petition was filed by the petitioner under section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, in the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate- V, Kozhikode.
The petitioner and the respondent were married on 10/3/2005 and were living together as
husband and wife from 14/8/2005, at the residence of the petitioner. Two children were born
of out the wedlock. At the time of the marriage, 78 sovereigns of gold were given to the
petitioner, and after 2-3 months, the respondents started torturing the petitioner stating that
the ornaments received is very less.
The petitioner was threatened and was asked to bring more gold ornaments from her home
and the respondent threatened to contract another marriage if she failed to do so. The
respondent was proved to be a drunkard and often forced the petitioner to consume alcohol
and consumed drugs too. The petitioner was often physically tortured by the respondent. The
respondent was found to have several illicit relationships and often harassed the petitioner in
front of their children when she questioned him regarding his illicit relationships. On
20/4/2012, the petitioner was compelled to be taken to Ooty and was forced to consume
alcohol and to smoke cigarettes. The respondent compelled her for unnatural sexual
intercourse and the petitioner eventually became ill, as a result of this. The petitioner returned
to her house with her children. She was not permitted to take her education certificates,
driving license and other relevant documents by the respondents. The respondents also
attempted to take the children away from the house of the petitioner. The respondent has
misappropriated the gold sovereigns of the petitioner and has refused her to stay in the shared
household. The court held that the respondents are restrained from committing any act of
domestic violence under section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

DATE: 8TH DECEMBER 2016 DAY: THURSDAY

A petition was filed by the petitioner in the family court, Kozhikode. The respondent is the
legally wedded wife of the petitioner. They got married on 14/7/1997. Before the marriage,
they were in love while they were working together in the same school, in Andhra Pradesh
for eight months. Two children were born out of the wedlock. The petitioner had bought a
piece of land for constructing a house in Kozhikode, for an amount of Rs. 2,90,000. The
amount was contributed by his mother, brother and sister, on the condition that he will take
care of his mother and mentally ill sister in the same house. The respondent agreed to this.
Later, the petitioner asked her name to be included as one of the owners of the land. The
petitioner didnt heed to her request as he had a prior condition to uphold. The petitioner
wasnt happy with this decision and therefore refused to live with the respondent in the rented
house where they were currently residing. She even refused to let the children spend time
with the respondent. After a few months, they came back together and started to live in the
petitioners house. After a while, the respondent wanted the petitioners mother and sister to
live separately. This created quarrels and differences of opinion and she didnt like the way in
which the petitioner was spending money to take care of his mother and sister.
Eventually she left his home along with the second child, leaving the first child at the
petitioners house and started living separately. The petitioner tried many ways to revive their
relationship. The respondent was adamant and refused to stay together unless the petitioner
stopped supporting his mother and sister. The respondent had an illicit relationship with
another man while living separately from the petitioner. Cases of harassing and ill-treating
the child on the part of the respondent have also been included and mentioned in the petition.
Therefore, the petitioner prays that a decree for dissolution of the marriage may be
solemnised between the petitioner and the respondent and prays to the court to direct the
respondent to pay the cost of the petition to the petitioner.

DATE: 9TH DECEMBER 2016 DAY: FRIDAY

A suit was presented before the honourable Munsiff court, Kozhikode. The suit was one for a
perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant and his men from trespassing into
the property and reducing the same into his possession. The plaintiffs are co-owners of the
property which amounts to 52 acres in total. The issue is that, two months back, the defendant
trespassed into a part of the property and put up a shed on its southern side. Following this,
the plaintiff lodged a complaint with the Kodenchery police station, Kozhikode district and
demolished the shed in the property and objected his trespass in the property. After a few
days, the defendant arrived at the property again with the preparation of putting a shed there
again and on getting this information, the 2nd plaintiff along with her husband objected this
trespass and told the defendant to leave the property along with his people or else they will
inform the police and remove them from the property. Due to this resistance made by the 2nd
plaintiff and her husband, the defendant and his men left the property and while leaving he
threatened the plaintiff and her husband that he would trespass in the property collecting
more men and materials as he was in need of an area of 3 cents showing possession of the
same for getting a loan applied by him. The plaintiffs therefore apprehended an imminent
threat of the defendants trespass into the property with more men and materials and reduce a
part of the property in his possession which would cause irreparable loss and injury to the
plaintiffs. Therefore a necessity for a perpetual prohibitory injunction is necessary so that the
defendant be restrained from trespassing into the property and doing any acts or construction
and therein reducing the same into his possession.
For the above mentioned reasons, a prayer has been made to the honourable court to pass an
order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing into the property or
doing any act or construction therein and reducing the same into his possession till the
disposal of the suit and to the same effect, pass an ad-interim order of injunction till the
disposal of the petition.

DATE: 10TH DECEMBER 2016 DAY: SATURDAY

A suit was filed against the order passed by the honourable Munsiff- magistrate court,
Sulthan Bathery, Kozhikode district dated 2nd February 2016. An application was filed along
with the suit by the appellant who is the plaintiff in the said suit for temporary mandatory and
prohibitory injunction preventing the respondents from removing the teak wood etc. stacked
in the property of the 1st and 2nd respondents. The agreement is executed between the
appellant and the first respondent and the second respondent is not a party to the agreement.
The second respondent is made a party in the suit as well as the injunction solely for the
reason that the timber involved in the suit are stacked in the property of the 2nd respondent.
According to the appellant, he had entered into an agreement to purchase standing timber
trees belonging to the 2nd respondent. It was mentioned in the agreement that the petitioner
could transport the soft wood after paying a particular amount and thereafter could cut the
teak wood and rosewood trees after paying the remaining amount of money. As per the
agreement the appellant could cut tress having girth of 1 foot and above. In the meanwhile
differences and disputes started between the appellant and the 1st respondent and the 1st
respondent didnt permit the appellant to remove the soft wood cut and stored in the property
of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent demanded further security and for this the appellant
had issued a cheque for the balance amount to be paid. Even after this, the 1st respondent
didnt allow the appellant to remove the soft wood. Even the trees which could have been cut
as per the agreement having a girth of 1 foot were not permitted to be cut. The respondent
was not willing to permit the appellant to transport the timber even though the appellant was
ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The appellant also approached the
respondent with the balance sales consideration, which the respondent refused to accept.
Thereafter, the first respondent filed a complaint before SHO Pulppally and it was agreed that
the balance amount had to be paid before the said date and the respondent will not make any
obstruction in transporting the timber.
Again the approached the 1st respondent with the balance amount and the respondent refused
to accept the amount and prevented him from entering his property. Subsequently the
appellant came to know that the wood which was stacked in the 1st respondents property was
maliciously and fraudulently removed by the 1st respondent and their henchmen to the
property of the 2nd respondent without the consent and knowledge of the appellant. The
appellant filed the above suit before the Munsiff- magistrate court, Sulthan Bathery praying
that the 1st respondent may be directed to accept the balance amount and permit the appellant
to remove the wooden logs by way of mandatory injunction. The appellant also filed that the
respondent may be restrained from selling the wooden logs and not to remove the same from
the property by way of temporary injunction. The respondents filed a counter and mentioned
in their counter that the appellant had committed breach by not paying the balance amount
and because of this the respondent had been put to irreparable loss and hardship.

DATE: 11TH DECEMBER 2016 DAY: SUNDAY

An introduction was made to the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. Section 138 talks about
dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds in the account of the holder. First of all the
drawer should have a bank account and the account should be in his name. The cheque
should have been drawn in the name of his account. The cheque should be dishonoured by
the drawers bank on the presentation of the cheque by the drawee. The reason for such
dishonouring should be that there were insufficient funds in the drawers account. The cheque
should have been issued to settle a legally enforceable debt or liability. The procedure for
filing a complaint in this act is further given; the cheque would be dishonoured by the
drawers bank and returned with a memo. Within one month of the receipt of returned cheque
with memo, the holder of the cheque should issue a notice to the drawer demanding payment
of the cheque amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. If the amount is not received
within this time, the holder of the cheque should file a complaint within one month of the
expiry of 15 days of the notice demanding payment. Regarding the jurisdiction, earlier the
complaint would be filed within the courts jurisdiction on the happening of five events:

1) The place from where the money was paid.

2) The place from where the cheque was issued
3) The bank on which the cheque was drawn, i.e., the drawers bank
4) The bank through which the cheque was collected
 5) The place from where the notice demanding payment on dishonourment is issued.

In a supreme courts case known as Bhaskarans case the jurisdiction of the court was
decided to be within the drawees banks limits. In cases where, after the complaint , the
stage under 142(1) is over and passed on to 142(2) the case should be resumed in the court
where it is pending irrespective of whether it is in the jurisdiction or not. With respect to
cases which havent crossed 142(1) the complaint should be returned to the complainant to
present to the proper court, which is in the drawees banks jurisdiction. In future the
complaint has to be filed in the drawees banks jurisdiction.

DATE: 12TH DECEMBER 2016 DAY: MONDAY

A case in the Additional District and Sessions court was observed. In the case the petitioner
was bedridden and was waiting for a liver transplant to be performed and the necessary
medical records and documents were submitted to the court along with the suit. The
petitioner was recently divorced and had a child in that marriage. According to an order
passed by a lower court, the petitioner was ordered to pay Rs. 6000 as maintenance to his
wife and son on a monthly basis. The wife and the child were currently residing with the
petitioner in his house and their expenses were managed directly by the petitioner from his
earnings. Since their expenses and necessities are taken care of by the petitioner and since
they are residing in his house, the petitioner had filed a suit to repeal the order of the lower
court to provide the maintenance amount of Rs. 6000 to his wife and child, and added that the
lower court had passed the order without considering his medical records and since the
petitioner is bedridden and is waiting for a liver transplant, he is unable to afford and
maintain the expenses. The petitioner stated the order of the lower court as stereotypical and
filed a suit for the same.

In another case which was observed, the accused was charged under sections 294 and 332 of
the Indian penal code for uttering obscenity in public and for preventing a public servant
from performing his duty. According to the case, a police official was in his night patrol duty
when he spotted three men speaking in an obscene language on the road at that time. When
he approached the men, two of them ran away and the accused was caught by the police. The
accused pushed the police official and allegedly beat and kicked him on his body.
It was argued by the counsel for the accused that the police officer had caught the accused at
the time when he was not on duty as his name was not written and registered in the night
patrol duty register that night. It was mandatory for a police official to write and register by
filling the necessary details in a night patrol duty register before starting the patrol duty. The
police officer can be deemed or considered to be in night patrol duty only if he had registered
his name in that night patrols register. The Counsel also added that the police officer was
trying to handcuff the accused and he was not supposed to do so, on the side of the road in
that situation.

DATE: 13TH DECEMBER 2016 DAY: TUESDAY

Since there was no case dealt in the district court by my senior in particular today,
observation sessions were held in the Additional Munsiff Court (I). A witness was being
cross examined in that court room. The owner of a building was being crossed examined. The
building was used to set up a hotel known as the Malabari Caf. A sunshade was constructed
in the plot where the building was situated which extended to an area of less than half a cent.
The primary motive of constructing the sunshade according to the owner was to protect the
vehicles which might be parked from exposure to sunlight and heat. It was argued by the
defendant that the said parking lot which was covered by the sunshade was used as a dining
area for the customers, by setting up tables and chairs. When the city commissioner of police
came to inspect what was going on, the hotel authorities removed the tables and chairs and
parked two vehicles to give proof that the area was being used as a parking lot. The complaint
of the petitioner was that there wasnt enough space for the customers to park their vehicles
inside the plot. There were two gates which acted as entrances to the building.

One was a big gate through which cars and other four wheeled vehicles could enter the plot.
The other gate was a small one through which only two wheeled vehicles could enter. There
was a shop owned by the defendant which was located near the small gate. The complainant
added in the suit that the shop should be demolished as there wasnt enough space for the
customers to enter or gain access to the building. The defendant argued that a portion of the
wall of the plot could be demolished in order to create more space for the vehicles to enter.
The witness who was being cross examined added that the hotel managers often informed
him about the inadequacy and inconvenience to park vehicles in the said parking space since
the day the hotel started functioning.
The defendant sold chips and bakery delicacies his shop and argued that it was difficult to
find another building which was available for rent for the owner to fry and sell chips and to
get the license for the same from the Kozhikode city corporation. It was also added that there
wasnt any building which was available for lease purposes near the area where the shop now
is located at and the defendant will suffer irreparable loss in his business if he shifts to a
faraway location from where the current business is situated as it is a small scale business and
he is likely to lose his customers in that area. It was alleged by the defendants that the
building owner (owner of Malabari Caf ) wanted to get the shop near the gate of his plot to
be demolished and filed a suit to attain this sole purpose.

The complainant defended the allegation by stating that the suit was filed for the issue of
parking space obstruction and the road near which the properties of both the parties are
situated, is very narrow and the city corporations didnt have any plans to widen the road. It
was added that the extension caused by constructing the sunshade has caused no obstruction
to the parking space and that the parking space is still used for parking purposes. The next
hearing was dated to 16th December 2016.

DATE: 14TH DECEMBER 2016 DAY: WEDNESDAY

The case which was discussed was regarding a revision petition in the Sessions Court,
Kozhikode which was filed under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the
order of the honourable judicial magistrate of first class-II, Perambra. The petitioners were
accused before the judicial magistrate of first class II, Perambra. The complaint was filed by
the respondent alleging offences under sections 465, 468, 471 read with 120B and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. The allegation in the complaint is that the petitioners have manipulated
certain records by forging her signature along with the signatures of certain other legal heirs
with the malicious intent of taking control of the administration and control of Nanminda
high school. The averments in the complaint filed by the respondents are that the petitioners
have created false documents by putting her false signatures along with that of others and that
one of the petitioners has attested the signatures as signed before me. The witnesses were
examined before the lower court. It was stated that the evidence adduced by the complainant,
who is the respondent herein and the oral and documentary evidences do not constitute the
ingredients of the offence alleged in the complaint.
It is argued that the lower court ought to have held that there is no scope for framing charges
against them and should have discharged them under section 245 of the code of criminal
procedure. Aggrieved by the order of the lower court framing charges against them, the
petitioners are submitting this revision petition under section 397 of the code of criminal
procedure. Therefore the grounds of revision are as follows: firstly, the order of framing
charges against the petitioners by the lower court is wrong and is contrary to law, is opposed
to the facts of the case. Secondly, the lower court ought to have held that the oral and
documentary evidences adduced on the side of the complainant are not admissible in
evidence and should have discharged the petitioners. Thirdly, the order of the lower court is
wrong and contrary to law in framing charges against the petitioners.

DATE: 15TH DECEMBER 2016 DAY: THURSDAY

The format for framing a notice of a criminal appeal was discussed. The appeal was with
reference to a revision petition filed. The format is as follows:

TO THE COURT CONCERNED

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO:

Notice is hereby given under section 385 of the code of criminal procedure that the aforesaid
appeal made to the court by_________ against the finding and sentence of the first class
judicial magistrate ___________ in C.C/S.T No:_____ will be heard on the ______day of
________

Dated this the ___ day of ___

By order,

Senior superintendent (designation)

DATE: 16TH DECEMBER 2016 DAY: FRIDAY

An arbitration case was dealt with, before the district court, Kozhikode. The applicant is the
contractor who had undertaken to execute the work mentioned in the agreement. The first
respondent is the other party to the agreement. The second respondent is the arbitral tribunal
appointed under the agreement to settle the disputes. The applicant participated in the tender
for work. The acceptance of the tender was communicated to the applicant through a letter.
Thereafter a formal agreement was executed. The time frame for completion of the work was
24 months which expired. The accepted probable amount of contract was also fixed. The
work was not completed within the specified date. The executive engineer rescinded the
contract. The said recession was revoked by the chief engineer. The applicant requested to
permit the completion of construction and handing over the building before a particular date.
the executive engineer wanted the applicant to apply for a formal extension of time in the
prescribed form. After six months, the executive engineer informed the applicant that his
office is left with no other alternative and issued a notice stating that the applicant has failed
to complete his work even after the extended date of completion and therefore the contract is
rescinded and his security deposited stands absolutely forfeited to the government.

After 12 years of the rescission of the contract, the second respondent was assigned as the
arbitrator. The claim of the first respondent was that the applicant should pay a particular sum
of money as extra liability on account of risk and cost, along with an interest rate of 21%. The
main arguments of the defence were that the executive engineer has no power to represent the
Union of India in the arbitration. Secondly, the rescission of the contract is bad as per law and
is against the contract. It is performed without application of mind and influenced by
extraneous considerations. The applicant added that the provisions in the contract did not
intend time to be the essence of the contract. Rescission of such a contract without fixing any
further period making the time the essence and directing the contractor to complete the work
within such time was illegal and wrongful. The imposition of fine including the alleged risk
and cost was wrongful and against the contract. He also added that there is no provision in the
contract for claiming interest from the applicant. No oral evidence was adduced by the
parties. The applicant stated that the arbitrator has not made the award immediately or in the
near future and had kept the matter lie over for his own reasons.
It is alleged that the arbitrator signed the award without even looking at the pleading and did
not try to understand the actual controversy between the parties. The applicant has prayed
that the award made by the second respondent be set aside and has filed a counter claim
against the arbitration award.

DATE:17TH DECEMBER 2016 DAY: SATURDAY

A case was filed before the special judicial first class magistrate court, Kozhikode. The case
was charge sheeted by the sub inspector of police, Feroke police station against the accused,
alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 498A and 406 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case against the accused was that, the complainant was
married to the accused as per Muslim religious rites. While she was residing with the accused
in his paternal home, she was physically and mentally harassed as the accused was
demanding more gold ornaments and cash. It is alleged further that the accused
misappropriated the gold ornaments which was entrusted to them by the complainant. At the
time of examination, the complainant turned hostile to the prosecution case by stating that she
was not subjected to cruelty, physically or mentally and she had filed the case on a
misunderstanding. She later testified that the matter has been settled between the parties out
of court and that she has no grievances against the accused.

The mother, father and the sister of the accused, stated during examination that they didnt
see the accused harassing the complainant. There was no evidence to prove that the accused
harassed the complainant demanding more gold and money. And there was no evidence to
prove that the complainant entrusted the gold to the accused and misappropriated the same.
Considering the entire evidence born out, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove
the entire case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore the accused
were not found guilty of the said offences and were acquitted under section 248(1) of the
code of criminal procedure and were set at liberty.
DATE: 18TH DECEMBER 2016 DAY: SUNDAY

The format of a First Information Report was discussed. The format is mentioned below:

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

(Under Section 154 Cr.P.C):

S.R NO.: BOOK NO:

1) DISTRICT: POLICE STATION: YEAR: FIR NO: DATE:

2) ACT(S): SECTION(S):

3) OCCURRENCE OF OFFENCE:
a) DAY: DATE FROM: DATE TO:

TIME PERIOD: TIME FROM: TIME TO:

a) INFORMATION RECEIVED AT P.S: DATE: TIME:

b) GENERAL DIARY REFERENCE: ENTRY NO: TIME:

4) TYPE OF INFORMATION:

5) PLACE OF OCCURRENCE:

a) DIRECTION AND DISTANCE FROM P.S:

b) ADDRESS:

c) IN CASE OUTSIDE THE LIMIT OF THE POLICE STATION:-

NAME OF P.S: DISTRICT:

6) COMPLAINANT/INFORMANT:
a) NAME:
b) AGE: NATIONALITY:
 c) PASSPORT NO: DATE OF ISSUE: PLACE OF ISSUE:
d) OCCUPATION:
e) ADDRESS:

7) DETAILS OF KNOWN/SUSPECT/UNKNOWN ACCUSED WITH FULL

PARTICULARS:
8) REASON FOR DELAY IN REPORTING BY COMPLAINANT/INFORMANT:
9) PARTICULARS OF THE PROPERTIES STOLEN/INVOLVED:

S.I NO: PROPERTY TYPE: EST. VALUE (Rs.): STATUS:

10) TOTAL VALUE OF PROPERTY STOLEN:

11) INQUEST REPORT/ UNNATURAL DEATH CASE NO. (IF ANY):
12) FIR CONTENTS:
13) ACTION TAKEN:
i) REGISTERED THE CASE AND TOOK UP THE INVESTIGATION OR:
ii) DIRECTED ( NAME OF THE INVESTIGATION OFFICER):
iii) REFUSED INVESTIGATION DUE TO:
iv) TRANSFERRED TO P.S(NAME) ON POINT OF JURISDICTION
(DISTRICT):

F.I.R READ OVER TO THE COMPLAINANT/ INFORMANT ADMITTED TO BE

CORRECTLY RECORDED AND A COPY GIVEN TO THE
COMPLAINANT/INFORMANT, FREE OF COST :
 14)

Signature/thumb impression of the Signature of officer in charge,

Complainant/ informant: police station:

Name:

Rank: No:

15) Date and time of despatch to the court: