Pre-FIR evidence collection vitiated the investigation where recorded conversation was used before prompt FIR registration.

Recording the accused's conversation before registration of the FIR was treated as part of the investigative process, because the information initially received disclosed a cognizable offence and the officer nevertheless deferred FIR registration while collecting evidence. The pre-FIR recording therefore was not a mere preliminary enquiry, and the later FIR could not be treated as the first information to justify using that material in the trap mahazar. As the material gathered before registration was blended with the trap proceedings, the investigation was held vitiated and the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether recording of the accused's conversation before registration of the FIR amounted to investigation rather than a permissible preliminary enquiry, and whether the subsequent FIR and trap proceedings were vitiated for non-compliance with the requirement of prompt registration of the FIR.

Analysis: The information received by the police on 26.03.2013 disclosed a cognizable offence, yet the officer did not register an FIR immediately and instead handed over a voice recorder to the complainant to record the accused's conversation. The recorded conversation was later incorporated into the trap mahazar and used along with the subsequent registration of the case. Since investigation under the Code includes collection of evidence and other steps undertaken to decide whether the accused should be prosecuted, the pre-FIR recording of conversation in the facts of this case was treated as part of the investigative process and not as a mere preliminary enquiry. The later FIR was therefore not the first information that reached the police station, and the material collected before registration of the case could not be blended with the trap mahazar to sustain the proceedings.

Conclusion: The pre-FIR recording and use of that material in the trap proceedings vitiated the investigation, and the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed in favour of the petitioner.

---