Explanation
- A
1, 2 and 3
1, 2 and 3. Incorrect. Statement 1 overreaches by bundling cognizable and non-cognizable offences into the Zero FIR claim, and statement 3 wrongly makes exclusive electronic filing obligatory.
- B
2 and 3 only
2 and 3 only. Incorrect. Statement 2 can stand, but statement 3 does not: Zero FIR does not oblige the informant to furnish information only electronically.
- C
1 only
1 only. Incorrect. Statement 1 is not correct as framed — Zero FIR is not correctly stated for both cognizable and non-cognizable offences outside jurisdiction.
- D
2 only
2 only. Correct. After a Zero FIR is lodged, the officer-in-charge may, with permission of the competent authority, initiate a preliminary enquiry; that is the only keyed correct statement here.
Summary. Official key is (d): only statement 2 is correct — preliminary enquiry after a Zero FIR may proceed with competent permission — while statements 1 and 3 fail as framed.
Same topic · past papers
UPSC has asked this before
These previous-year questions sit on the same topic. Open one to practise the earlier ask.
-
2021 · Q82 · General Studies · 2 marks
With reference to India, consider the following statements: 1. Judicial custody means an accused is in the custody of the concerned magistrate and such accused is locked up in police station, not in jail. 2. During judicial custody, the policy officer in charge of the case is not allowed to interrogate the suspect without the approval of the court. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? -
2024 · Q92 · General Studies · 2 marks
Consider the following statements : Statement-I : India does not import apples from the United States of America. Statement-II : In India, the law prohibits the import of Genetically Modified food without the approval of the competent authority. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements ?