Answer is B is correct. FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence but only can be used for the purpose of corroboration under section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore option (b) is the correct answer.

Answer is C is correct. There is no hard and fast rule that any delay in lodging the FIR would automatically render the prosecution case doubtful. It necessarily depends upon facts and circumstances of each case whether there has been any such delay in lodging the FIR which may cast doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case and for this a host of circumstances like the condition of the first informant, the nature of injuries sustained, the number of victims, the efforts made to provide medical aid to them, the distance of the hospital and the police station, etc. have to be taken into consideration. Therefore option (c) is the correct answer.

Answer is C is correct. Section 155 of the code deals with information related to non-cognizable cases. Wherein the officer-in-charge of a police station to record the information and refer the informant to the Magistrate. Sub-section (2) expressly prohibits the police officer from investigating a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate. Sub-section (3) then lays down how the police officer should proceed in the case once he gets the order of the Magistrate. Sub-section (4) expressly provides that if one of the offences reported is cognizable and the report relates to two or more offences, then the case must be treated as a cognizable case. That is to say, the powers and duties under section 154 will be attracted under section 155 as well. Therefore option (c) is the correct answer.

Answer is D is correct. In Parwari v Emperor 1919, court held that the statement made to the police as the result of the action taken under Section 154 or 155 are privileged statements and cannot be used as an evidence or foundation of charges. Therefore option (d) is the correct answer.

Answer is A is correct. In T.T. Antony v State of Kerala, one of the important issues, inter alia, for determination was, whether registration of a fresh case on the basis of the letter of the DGP which is in the nature of the second FIR under section 154 of Cr PC for the same incident is valid and can it form the basis of a fresh investigation? To which the court observed and held that the scheme of the provisions of sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of Cr PC, only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of section 154, Cr PC. Thus, there can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident-giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. Therefore option (a) is the correct answer.