FIRST INFORMATION REPORT (FIR)—Modes Of

Lodging And Legal Aspects Of Credibility

Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi & Nidhi Vaidya1

Table of Contents

Statement of purpose

Introduction

What is FIR?

Why FIR?

History of FIR

Requirements of FIR

Object of FIR

‘Information’: Comparison With Earlier Codes

Information-- not first information

Validity of unreliable and ingenuine information

Cognizable Cases

Evidentiary Value of FIR

Anonymous FIRs

Power of High court to interfere

Message By Telephone

FIR vis-a –vis Investigation

Various Aspects of FIR

Quashing Of FIR Before Investigation Begins

Conclusion

Bibliography

1
The Authors are Lawyers practicing in High Court of MP, Indore, India and can be reached at
raghav_nliu@rediffmail.com.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1558974

Statement of purpose: To study the various legal aspects of Section 154, Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, and whether telephonic information comes under the umbrella of
the said provision?

We have, so far, attempted a detailed and searching analysis on the legal issues with
regard to the statutory duty of an officer-in-charge of a police station in registering the
First Information Report and commencing the investigation thereon as well the principles
relating to the exercise of extra-ordinary and inherent powers of the High Court in
quashing either the FIR or the entire criminal proceedings as the case may be; and
bearing in mind the enunciations of law, we have given our anxious consideration and
careful thought to all the related legal issues emerge therewith.

We shall also focus on the evidentiary value of FIR, its validity when it is
unreliable and ingenuine and the legality of mere oral intimation or telephonic
information.

Introduction

To begin any investigation, it is quite obvious that the police need to know that an
offence has been committed. This can be possible if someone approaches the police
station and gives the details of the offence committed. This is often called as the First
Information Report (in short, FIR) and has been contemplated under Section 154 of the
Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”). The basic
requirements of FIR as per the section are that, in case of a cognizable offence, if
information is given to an officer-in-charge of the police station orally, then,

1. It shall be reduced to writing by such officer;

2. Such information shall then be read out to the informant;
3. The signature of the informant shall be received on the written information;
4. And. finally, it shall be entered in the diary \book meant for this purpose, by
such officer.
5. A copy of the report is also to be handed over to the informant under clause
(2) of the section.

The information with respect to a non-cognizable offence can be given under Section 155
of Cr.P.C. The police officer can start the investigation in the reported offence after such
information is received under Sections 156 and 157 of Cr.P.C.

Case laws have developed to establish various principles with respect to FIR such
as: it is sufficient if an FIR indicates that an offence has been committed2, the names of
offender or witnesses are not required to be disclosed while filing an FIR. Every minute
detail is not required, informant need not have personal knowledge of the incident, it may
be given by anyone who witnesses the crime or hears from someone that a crime has been

2 Bishan v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 573; Kartar v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 214.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1558974

committed3, etc. Basically, an FIR commences the investigation in a criminal case.

Such report, not being substantive evidence, may be used in the trial either for
corroborating or contradicting the evidence. However, such information is not a condition
precedent to the setting in motion of the criminal investigation. Therefore, it is often
disputed in one's mind as to why such information is to be given. That is, the basis for
recording such information. Also, how a common man should know as to what exactly is
to be informed to the police if one witnesses a crime or overhears it. These are some of
the pertinent issues which need to be addressed before one understands the procedure of
filing an FIR and other technical issues relating to it as contemplated under Cr.P.C. and
as developed by case laws.

Another important issue with respect to FIR which has been worrying the Courts for
quite a long time, is with respect to the anonymity in case of FIR, especially when FIR is
given on telephone. That is if in case the person who gives first information report on
telephone does not reveal his/her name, then, whether in such cases the FIR would be
significant for the investigative purpose. Also, what in case the information is vague or
cryptic, whether it would be admissible in such cases. These have been issues of great
concern by the Courts and many differing opinions have developed in the course of time.
Nevertheless, the issue still doesn't seem to be well settled.

These controversial issues have been taken up for discussion in the present study,
which tries to analyze the object of FIR, the requirements of FIR or the elements
constituting an FIR, and the anonymity in FIR. Various case laws and authorities have
been used to substantiate the arguments in the study and a critical analysis of the issues
has been produced.

What is FIR?

Now, after understanding the basis for filing an FIR it is important to know the meaning
of FIR and when a statement made to the Police Officer becomes an FIR. FIR is nowhere
defined in Cr.P.C. However, many authors have attempted to explain the meaning of FIR.
In fact it is important for a common man to know the meaning of FIR and what are the
requirements of FIR. It is only when the person has knowledge about FIR can he/she file
an FIR in order to put the investigation into motion. Let us, therefore, examine the
meaning principles and requirements of FIR as discussed in various case laws.

The legal mandate enshrined in Section 154(1) is that every information relating to the
commission of a "cognizable offence" (as defined under Section 2(c) of the Code) if
given orally (in which case it is to be reduced into writing) or in writing to "an officer in
charge of a police station" (within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Code) and signed
by the informant should be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as
the State Government may prescribe which form is commonly called as “First
Information Report” and which act of entering the information in the said form is known

3
Arpen v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1

3
as registration of a crime or a case.

Why FIR?

One of the ways in which a person puts the criminal investigation into motion is by
giving information about the crime committed. Such information is called the “First in-
formation" as it is given by the person first in point of time after the offence was com-
mitted Section 154 of Cr.P.C. provides for the procedure of filing an FIR. But the ques-
tion often arises in one's mind as to what is the need for filing an FIR or why an FIR
should be filed. This moot question requires the understanding of the importance of FIR
in criminal Cases and how it helps in giving a push to the investigation. This section
analyses the importance of FIR and why!1t is required in a criminal proceeding.

History of FIR

The above sub-section corresponds to Section 154 of the old Code (Act of 1955) and also
to Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1882 (Act X of 1882) except for the
slight variation in that expression 'local Government' had been used in 1882 in the place
of 'State Government'. Presently, on the recommendations of the 41st Report of the Law
Commission, the sub-sections (2) and (3) have been newly added. Section 154(1)
regulates the manner of recording the First Information Report relating to the commission
of a cognizable offence.

Requirements of FIR

The condition which is sine qua non for recording a First Information Report is that there
must be information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence. It is,
therefore, manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid
before an officer-in-charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section
154(1) the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in
the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information.4

Section 154 states that when information is given to the Police Officer about the com-
mission of a particular crime then such information should be reduced to writing by the
officer-in-charge of the police station and later entered into the Station House Diary or
any other book meant for such purpose. It is also necessary that the informant signs such
written report and a copy of the same should be handed over to the informant after it is
read out to him/her by the Police Officer.

Therefore, where actual information of the robbery was given to the Circle Inspector
of Police but the said information was not recorded the subsequent statement recorded by
the Station House Officer cannot be considered as FIR. Similarly where a person
reported to a police officer that he had seen a woman with her throat cut and the officer

4
State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604.

4
did not make a record of the fact but subsequently treated information lodged by the
woman's father as the first information in the case. It was held that the unrecorded
Information and not the information given by woman's father was -in fact the first in-
formation.

It is also important that the information should relate to a cognizable offence. Moreo-
ver, vague, indefinite and cryptic information cannot be considered as FIR. Also. it has
been held that the FIR need not be an encyclopedia of all the events and what is required
to be stated is the basic prosecution case.

Thus, it is well settled in the case laws as to what an FIR is and what are the basic
requirements of a valid FIR. It is essential is for a person filing an FIR to know about as
these principles of FIR. A person need not tell all minute details about the incident and
need not disclose the names of the accused 11 or the eye-witnesses. This should be told to
the informant in advance before he reports about the crime. In case, this is not done, the
person may, disclose some facts which may be confessional in nature and may go against
the Informant himself/herself. This is contrary to the principle of FIR.

Moreover, it has been often noticed in practical situations that the person who informs
about a particular crime comes under the suspicion of the police, especially a when the
information is vague or there has been delay in filing the FIR. Police may even use
harsher means to make the Informant disclose certain material facts about the case. This
not just reflects the laziness on part of the police to conduct the entire inquiry on their
own, but also a means by which the police merely try to torture the common man since he
had the knowledge about the offence committed and t11us try to prove that he himself
would have been involved in the crime in some or the other way. Also, any vague
information given by the informant adds to his own apathy since the police to reveal all
the intimidating facts again torture him. In rape cases, for example, the police may start
interrogating the" victim herself or her relatives in spite of conducting investigation in the
case. Now, since rape is a kind of crime where there won't be many eyewitnesses and the
main witnesses would be the accused and the victim (prosecutrix), the latter may not be
in a situation to elaborate on the crime committed and her relatives would not be the eye-
witnesses to the case. Thus, it becomes quite difficult to give all the details about the
crime while filing FIR. The police and thus an excuse to either delay investigation or
even to close the case as such may treat this as a vague FIR. Otherwise the police may try
to ask intimidating and humiliating questions to the victim to try to decipher more facts.

Further. Indian Penal Code provides punishment for a public servant who disobeys any
direction of the law as to the way in which he/she is to conduct himself/herself as such
public servant and thereby cause injury to person by such person through such
disobedience. The punishment is a simple imprisonment extending to 1 year, or fine, or
both. However in most of the circumstances no informant who has come to lodge merely
an FIR would like to complain about such dereliction of duty on the part of a public
servant mainly for the reason because it may create unnecessary hardship for such person.
Also, such complaint would take a long time to get settled and in the meanwhile the main
purpose for which the person came to the Police Station that is to lodge an FIR would be

5
lost. The effect of the FIR as well as the incident Use If for which the information was to
be given would diminish by the time any action is taken against the Police Officer who
refused to record the FIR. This is contrary to the objective of FIR, which gives the Police
Officer the earliest point from where he/she can start the investigation.

Furthermore, no consideration has been made where the police officer may record an
improper FIR putting his own comments and statements in the FIR, which may adversely
affect the informant himself/herself and then force the informant to sign on it. Such
corrupt practices by the Police Officer are not merely hypothetical or mere imaginary;
rather such are the practical realities of the present society where mostly the police are
bound not by their duties but by monetary considerations offered to them by major
criminals or even politicians. This is often valued against the concerns of the citizens.

Thus, in such circumstances, the filing of FIR becomes nothing but a torturous and
insulting experience and a sham in the eyes of a common man.

Object of FIR

The main object of FIR from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal
law into motion and from the point of view of the investigating authorities is to obtain
information about the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps to
trace and bring to book the guilty. It has been held that Section 154 has three-fold
objective:

Firstly, to inform the Magistrate of the District and the District Superintendent of
Police who are responsible for the peace and safety of the district.

Secondly, to make known to the Judicial officers before whom the case is ultimately
tried what are the material facts on which investigation is commenced; and

Thirdly, to safeguard against subsequent forgetfulness and embellishment on part of

the informant about the incident5.

Clearly, an FIR helps police in going ahead with the investigation as it provides the
police with the initial information of the crime committed. Such FIR lodged by common
citizens is a kind of help forwarded by them to the police to take cognizance of the
offence that has been committed in their locality.

The legal position as to the object, value and use of first information report is well
settled. The principal object of the first information report from the point of view of the
informant is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of view of the
investigating authorities is to obtain reliable and genuine to book the guilty party. The
first information report, we may point out, does not constitute substantive evidence

5
Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed, AIR 1945 PC 18.

6
though its importance as conveying the earliest information regarding the occurrence
cannot be doubted. It can, however, only be used as a previous statement for the purpose
of either corroborating its maker under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act or for
contradicting him under Section 145 of that Act. It cannot be used for the purpose of
corroborating or contradicting other witnesses.6

However it has been held that the receipt or recording of an FIR by the police is not a
condition precedent to the setting into motion of a criminal investigation. This means that
if a Police Officer starts the investigation of a cognizable offence and goes to the spot on
hearing about the commission of a crime; without recording it in accordance with Section
154, the prosecution or trial thereafter cannot be vitiated on the ground that there was no
FIR in the case7. But if information is received and it is recorded in accordance with
Section 154 such FIR becomes the basis of the case set up by the informant even though
it may not be admissible as substantive evidence8.

However, under Section 154(3), it is mandatory for an officer-in-charge of the police

station to record the FIR if someone approaches him for giving information about a
crime. If the officer refuses to record the FIR the informant may send the substance of
such information to the Superintendent of Police (SP) who may take necessary actions in
this regard and may even ask the officer-in-charge to start the investigation upon such
information. Therefore as earlier said that the FIR is not a condition precedent but it
cannot be refused if a person is willing to give such information. But, it is important to
note here that such non-compliance with Section 154 and not filing FIR when the
informant approaches the officer in-charge has not been made illegal or punishable under
Cr.P.C. This means that even after receiving the information, the officer in-charge may
not record it and may not proceed with the investigation.

The informant, who in most cases will be a common man, may not know his right
under Cr.P.C. that he can approach SP in such cases, and would be helpless to take any
action against such officer. This negligence on part of the Police Officers may hamper the
law and order in the society. Also, even if the person knows about such right of going to
the SP. he/she may ignore such right if he/she is a mere witness to the incident since
he/she would be reluctant to go into too much of hassle. Further sending the information
to the SP by post may take too much of time and by that time the evidence and witnesses
may be manipulated by the accused. This makes the main objective of FIR completely
futile.

Furthermore, it has been held that FIR though being an important and valuable
document cannot be considered to be the last word of the prosecution because an
eyewitness need not make it nor is it required to give full details. It merely marks t the
beginning of the investigation and its value must accordingly depend on the
circumstances of each case. Including the nature of the crime, the position of the
informant and the opportunity he had of witnessing the whole or part of the commission

6
Hasib v. State Of Bihar, 1972 (78) CRLJ 0233 SC.
7
Khan v. State, AIR 1962 Cal 641.
8
Supra.

7
of the offence. It is not substantive evidence and can only be used to either corroborate
or contradict the evidence and witnesses9.

From this discussion it is quite evident that FIR is in fact a highly valuable and vital
piece of evidence in a criminal trial. It is necessary to corroborate the oral evidence in the
case. It is the first version of the incident and is of considerable value as it reveals the
materials, that the investigation commences with and what the original version of the
story was. It has high practical value since the information is from the earliest instance,
when the memory is clear and vivid. But as discussed above, it is not mandatory and if it
is not recorded then it would not affect the trial in any way. However. I would like to
argue here that this may lead to situation where the Police Officer could show indolence
in filing FIR and would not take any initiative for conducting investigation into the crime,
even after receiving information about such crime. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan LaI10, it
was held that when the petitioner approaches the police and prays for registration of FIR
the police have no option but to register it and thereafter start investigations.

A critic of FIR points out. “Even though the contents of the FIR and the details therein
are very explicit, the instances of misusing these entries and inadequate entering of the
necessary details are rampant. Often, even if information is given, with graphic details,
the police fail to record a statement and to initiate any action. It is the duty, of the police
officer in charge of a station to record the information and take appropriate action. But
often the officer-in charge fails to perform his duty. The reasons are manifold - lack of
responsibility corruption, nepotism etc. Whatever the reason, the mechanism that ought-
to be set in motion simply does not work, resulting in failure of justice. Cognizable
offences are reported to the police, yet are not recorded, or recorded carelessly, or falsely
recorded on purpose to permit the accused an easy walk through in the trial11.

He further says, "The Criminal Procedure Code has laid down provisions for reporting
the offences and the modus of recording, but it has failed to foresee the possibility of an
officer committing errors either willfully or accidentally. The only safeguard is to address
the superior officer on the dereliction of duty by a subordinate officer. But this is limited
to cases when the officer-in-charge fails to record the information, and not where the
information recorded is improper. Under any circumstances, the law again places utmost
confidence in the police officer. What if the higher officer is also corrupt or reluctant to
act to meet the ends of justice? The only option for the informant is to approach the
Courts to redress the grievances, which would take at least six to seven months to begin
an inquiry given the number of cases pending disposal before the various Courts this
country. Such investigations suffer inordinate delays before being set into motion. Yet the
very purpose of recording an FIR is to get a picture of the incident while it is clear and
vivid in the informant's memory. That is probably why the law does not even permit a
preliminary enquiry into the incident before recording an FIR, because it would destroy
its value and pave the way for fabrication of cases.

9
Chandra Bhal v. State of UP, (1972) SCC 290.
10
1992 CrLJ 527
11
Bijo Francis (Advocate Kerala, “First Information Report or First Insulting Response”)

8
 It is therefore well understood that FIR is quite significant report which give the first
hand report about a particular incident of crime and directs the police to take: adequate
steps to prevent such crime or investigate further into it, provided such F.IR is properly
recorded by the officer-in-charge of the police station and is not considered a mere "oral
story" of the incident given by the informant.

‘Information’: Comparison With Earlier Codes

Be it noted that in Section 154(1) of the Code, the legislature in its collective wisdom has
carefully and cautiously used the expression “information” without qualifying the same
as in Section 41(1) (a) or (g) of the Code wherein the expressions, “reasonable
complaint” and “credible information” are used. Evidently, the non-qualification of
the word “information” in Section 154(1) unlike in Section 41(1) (a) and (g) of the Code
may be for the reason that the police officer should not refuse to record an information
relating to the commission of a cognizable offence and to register a case thereon on the
ground that he is not satisfied with the reasonableness or credibility of the information.

In other words, ‘reasonableness' or 'credibility' of, the said information is not a

condition precedent for registration of a case. A comparison of the present Section 154
with those of the earlier Codes will indicate that the legislature had purposely thought it
fit to employ only the 'word "information" without qualifying the said word. Section 139
of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1861 (Act XXV of 1861) passed by the
Legislative Council of India read that 'every complaint or information' preferred to an
officer in charge of a police station should be reduced into writing which provision was
subsequently modified by Section 112 of the Code of 1872 (Act X of 1872) which
thereafter read that 'every complaint' preferred to an officer in charge of a police station
shall be reduced into writing. The word 'complaint' which occurred in previous two
Codes of 1861 and 1872 was deleted and in that place the word 'information' was used in
the Codes of 1882 and 1955 which word is now used in Sections 154, 155, 157 and 190
(c) of the present Code of 1973 (Act 11 of 1974). An overall reading of all the Codes
makes it clear that the condition which is sine qua non for recording a First Information
Report is that there must be an information and that information must disclose a
cognizable offence.

Information-- not first information

The First Information Report (FIR) is a well-known technical description of a report

under S.154 giving first information of a cognizable 'crime. Complainant or someone on
his behalf usually makes this.

Section 154 refers to "information" and not "first information." nevertheless the in-
formation recorded under this section is called "first information" as it is the information
given first in time describing the commission of a crime at a place. The word
"information" in this section means something in the nature of a crime given with the
object of putting the police in motion in order to investigate as distinguished from
information obtained by the police when already investigating a crime. It can be given by

9
anyone. It should be the information given by an informant on which the investigation is
commenced. It should be the information recorded by the Police Officer before starting
investigation and thus it is distinguished from the information given after the
commencement of the investigation, which is covered under SS. 161, and 162 of
Cr.P.C12. Also, in case more than one information is received then all such information
given to the Police Officer about the commission of some offence before an investigation
has been started can be considered as FIR, Thus. Statements made by two different
persons to two different Police Officers at two different places about the same offence but
one was prior in time to other the latter will be an independent FIR and cannot be
excluded as being hit by S. 162.

Thus, a report recorded by the officer-in-charge of the nearby police station where the
crime took place, when made by any person whether a witness or someone else on his/her
behalf at the earliest, will define an FIR.

Validity of unreliable and ingenuine information

At the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information

disclosing a cognizable offence in compliance with the mandate of a Section 154 (1) of
the Code, the concerned police officer cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the
information, laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to
register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. On the other
hand, the officer in charge of a police station is statutorily obliged to register a case and
then to proceed with the investigation if he has reason to suspect the commission of an
offence, which he is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate, subject to
the proviso to Section 157. (As we have proposed to make a detailed discussion about the
power of a police officer in the field of investigation of a cognizable offence within the
ambit of Sections 156 and 157 of the Code in the ensuing part of this judgment, we do
not propose to deal with those sections in extension in the present context.) In case, an
officer in charge of a police station refuses to exercise the jurisdiction vested on him and
to register a case on the information of a cognizable offence, reported and thereby
violates the statutory duty cast upon him, the person aggrieved by such refusal can send
the substance of the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police
concerned who if satisfied that the information forwarded to him discloses a cognizable
offence, should either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made
by any police officer subordinate to him in the manner provided by sub-section (3) of
Section 154 of the Code.

Cognizable Cases

In this connection, it may be noted that though a police officer cannot investigate a
non-cognizable offence on his own as in the case of cognizable offence, he can
investigate a non-cognizable offence under the order of a Magistrate having power to try
such non cognizable case or commit the same for trial within the terms under Section 155

12
State of Bombay v. Rusy Mistry, AIR 1960 SC 391

10
(2) of the Code but subject to Section 155(3) of the Code. Further, under the newly
introduced sub-section (4) to Section 155, where a case relates to two offences to which
at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case
notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable and, therefore, under such
circumstances the police officers can investigate such offences with the same powers as
he has while investigating a cognizable offence.

Evidentiary Value of FIR

As already said, the FIR is not substantive evidence; however its importance as con-
veying the earliest information regarding the occurrence of a crime cannot be disputed.
Moreover, it can be used to corroborate the Informant under S. 157 of Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, or contradict the witness under S. 145 of the same Act if the informant is
called as a witness in the trial.

Following seven points have been identified as the uses of FIR, which is non-
confessional in nature for evidentiary purposes13:

1. For corroboration purposes: It cannot be ignored altogether and can be used to

corroborate the statement of the eyewitnesses.
2. For contradicting the evidence of person giving the Information.
3. For proving as an admission against the informer.
4. For refreshing informer's memory.
5. For impeaching the credit of an informer.
6. For proving informer's conduct.
7. For establishing identity of accused, witnesses and for fixing spot time as
relevant facts under S. 9, Evidence Act.

Moreover FIR can even become substantial evidence in following

circumstances:

1. During declaration when a person deposing about the cause of his death had died
(that is a dying declaration). In such case FIR will become admissible under S.
32(1) of Evidence Act.

2. When the injuries are being caused in the presence of SHO In PS and the injured
makes a statement to the SHO saying that accused was injuring him.

3. When the informer who has written the FIR or read it falls to recall to memory
those facts but is sure that the facts were correctly represented in FIR at the time
he wrote it or read it.

13
www.kiranbedi.com

11
Clearly, it can be reiterated again that FIR is a very important piece of evidence in a
criminal case. Refusal to record an FIR means losing substantial evidence in the case.
Thus, in case where the Police Officer in course of dereliction of his duties, refuses to
record FIR. It may cause u serious Impediment to the case in hand. Since FIR is the first
hand primary evidence, it is extremely valuable to the case. Refusal to record FIR may
even encourage crimes in the society as in such case most of the crimes will go unnoticed
and unrecorded due to inefficiency of Police Officers.

Anonymous FIRs:

This is one of the most controversial issues in the disclosure of First Information Report.
As has been discussed in preceding sections the FIR is an important report with high
evidentiary value since it is the earliest report about the commission of a crime. Also it
has been said that cryptic and vague FIR cannot be considered as an FIR. Now in case the
FIR is given on telephone and the person/informant does not disclose his/ her identity
then in such cases whether the FIR should be considered as cryptic and. therefore
inadmissible is a moot question.

Let us delve into this issue and try to examine it in the light of case laws.
As has been discussed the evidentiary value of FIR is far greater than that of any other
statement recorded by the police during the course of investigation. Keeping this relative
importance of FIR in view, the lawmakers have provided sufficient safeguards in S. 154
of Cr. P.C. such as the section requires FIR to be recorded verbatim in the very language
of the informant (as far as possible) to be read over and explained to him and to be signed
by the informant. The Idea behind reading over the Information reduced to writing and
obtaining signatures of the first information thereon is to ensure that what has been
reduced to writing is a true and faithful version of the information given to the officer-in-
charge of the police station.

Now, information given on telephone cannot be signed as per the requirements of S.

154. But this does not affect the admissibility of the document and such requirement may
only be considered as technical formality. Thus. Supreme Court in Tapinder Singh v.
State of Punjab14 on the issue whether the telephone message can be considered as FIR or
not came to the conclusion that prima facie cryptic and anonymous oral message which
did not in terms clearly specify a cognizable offence cannot be treated as First
Information Report. The mere fact that this information was the first in point of time does
not by itself clothe it with the character of First Information Report. The question
whether or not a particular document constitutes an FIR has to be determined on the
relevant circumstances of each case. In this case the Supreme Court was dealing with
information, which was received by the Police station, which was taken down in the daily
diary of the Police Station. However. it was a cryptic and anonymous oral message which
did not in terms specify any cognizable offence.

14
AIR 1970 SC 1566.

12
 In another case of Soma Bhai v. State of Gujarat15 the complainant had made the
report regarding the occurrence of a crime to the Sub-Inspector who however before
reducing it to writing by w y of abundant caution tried to seek further instruction by a
telephone message from the main police station at Surat. It was held, that the facts
narrated to the S.l. which were reduced to writing, a few minutes later, undoubtedly
constituted the FIR. But the message given to the Surat Police Station was too cryptic to
constitute a First information Report within the meaning of S. 154 of the Code and was
meant to be only for the purpose of getting further instructions. The Court further said.
"The FIR is required to state all the necessary facts and a cryptic message by itself could
not satisfy such requirement.

But in Tohal Singh v. State of Rajasthan16, the Rajasthan High Court observed that. "if
the telephonic message has been given to officer-in-charge of a police station the person
giving the message Is an ascertained one or is capable of being ascertained the in-
formation has been reduced to writing as required under S. 154 of Cr. P.C. and it is a
faithful record of such information and the information discloses commission of a cog-
nizable offence and is not cryptic one or incomplete in essential details, it would con-
stitute FIR."

Thus, the High Court tried to make an exception by stating that if it is easily dis-
cernible as to whom the informant is then even a telephone message will be considered as
FIR.

However in Dhananjoy Chattejee v. State of W B17 Their Lordships of the Supreme

Court indicated that the vague and indefinite information given on the telephone, which
made the investigating agency only to rush to the scene of occurrence could not be
treated as a First Information Report under 5.154, Cr. P.C. In yet another case of Ram
Singh Bavaji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat18, their Lordships observed that any telephone
information about commission of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the nature and
details of such information is not an FIR but it shall be deemed to be a statement made by
a person to the Police Officer in. the course of investigation covered - by S. 162, Cr. P.C.

But recently many High Courts have held that a telephone message can be considered as
FIR provided it discloses the particulars required by S. 154. Cr.P.C. about the
commission of cognizable offence.

For instance in S.G Gundegowda v. State19, Karnataka High Court after examining
Tapinder Singh's and Soma Bhars case held that the contention of the learned Addl. P.P.
that the telephonic message cannot be an FIR as it does not bear the signature of the
informant is also not acceptable in view of the fact that the conditions laid down by S.
154 regarding the reducing to writing the oral complaint and signing of the complaint is

15
AIR 1975 SC 1453
16
Supra.
17
AIR 1995 SCW 510
18
1994 CrLJ 3067
19
1996 CrLJ 852

13
merely procedural. If there is information relation to the commission of a cognizable
offence the mere fact that the Police Officer did not reduce it in writing which is in fact
the first information. will not make any less a first information.

At the same time High Court has held that laconic information received on telephone
giving no detail of the occurrence could not be an FIR. Thus where the counsel for the
appellant contended that the telephonic message received at the police station was the
first information of the crime and FIR should have been registered on that basis alone. In
such circumstances of the case the laconic information received on telephone giving no
details of the offence could not have been &aid to be the first Information and the SHO
did the right thing in reaching the spot on the basis of the information and registering
First Information Report.

Thus, there have been conflicting view points between the Supreme Court and various
High Courts as regards the issue of anonymous FIRs. Whereas Supreme Court has not
deviated from Its earlier stance considering the telephone message where the name of the
informant was not disclosed and which is cryptic in nature, will not constitute an FIR: on
the other hand the High Courts in recent past have taken a stance different from that of
the Supreme Court and have been considering a telephone message which is a faithful
record of the commission of an offence will be FIR and the fact that such FIR has not
followed the procedure contemplated by S. 154 of Cr. P.C. would not affect the validity
and credibility of such information. Since, till now no Supreme Court judgment has
affirmed this stance it is quite difficult to say that these High Court judgments resolve the
issue authoritatively.

In our opinion, we would express my conformity with the High Court decisions
holding a telephone message to be an FIR if it is faithfully recorded and gives all the es-
sential details about the offence committed. Also. The requirements of an FIR contem-
plated under S 154 should only be considered as procedural in nature and may be waived
depending on particular circumstances. Now, when an offence is committed sometimes it
may not be possible to go to the police station and give the information about the incident
there. In such cases the telephone is the most convenient way of informing the police
about the crime. Police Officer may on receiving such information reach the site of the
crime and initiate investigation in the case. Thus, such information can be deemed to be
first information under the definition maintained earlier since it is the earliest record of
the facts of the case as given to the police and with it the criminal investigation
commences.

However, as stated by the Supreme Court in various decisions, the telephone message
may be a cryptic one as such telephone call may be a crank call. in which circumstances
until the Police Officer reaches the site of crime and records the information of the people
there (witnesses), such information cannot be considered as reliable and cannot be
recorded. If this point is taken then in all cases an FIR would be a cryptic one since even
a person coming to the police station may give false statement, perhaps unintentionally or
where he himself was not sure of the facts of the case. Since hearsay information has also

14
been considered as an FIR, that is, even if the person is not himself the witness to the
crime, then too the information may be given and it would be valid and admissible, this
point substantiates the above said argument.

Also, we would like to disagree with the view taken by High Court saying that laconic
information would not be admissible. It is quite obvious that information given on
telephone would have to be precise and concise. The informant, of course cannot describe
the whole incident on the telephone. But the information should necessarily mention the
nature of the crime committed, the place of the crime and the time of the crime. If these
requirements are met with then even if the informant hasn't disclosed his/her identity, the
information can be considered, as FIR and it should set the law in motion, that is, the
Police Officer should proceed towards the site of crime and start investigation there. Any
statement recorded thereafter would be considered, as statement made in the course of
investigation and would be hit by S. 162 of Cr.P.C.

Thus. for all obvious reasons, a telephone message should also be considered as first
information about a particular offence and should be duly recorded under S. 154 0f
Cr.P.C. and mere non-signing of such document would not affect its validity and
admissibility as evidence. Such information would set the criminal investigation into
motion. If it is faithfully and truly made and recorded and is not cryptic in nature.
However, if the, information given is false and informant was a mere a crank-caller, then
if such person is caught by the police he/she can be convicted under S. 177 of I.P.C.

Power of High court to interfere

In following categories of cases, the High Court may in exercise of powers under
Art.226, Constitution of India or under S.482 or Cr.P.C. may interfere in proceedings
relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice. However, power should be exercised sparingly and that too
in the rarest of rare cases.

1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even
if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order
of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the Code.

3) Where the uncontroversial allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused.

4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police

15
 officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the
Code.

5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code
or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.

7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where
the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.

Message By Telephone

A message sent by telephone to the police officer and recorded by him in his
station diary, which discloses information regarding a cognizable offence, is the
information within the meaning of this section, which is popularly known as the first
information report. A cryptic and anonymous telephone message, which did not clearly
specify a cognizable offence, cannot be treated as a First Information Report. Cryptic
information given to the police even by an identifiable person on Telephone cannot be
termed as F.I.R. The mere fact that such a message is first in point of time does not by
itself clothe it with the character of first information report.

FIR vis-a –vis Investigation

The next key question that arises for consideration is whether the registration of a
criminal case under Section 154(1) of the Code ipso facto warrants the setting in motion
of an investigation under Chapter XII of the Code.

Section 157(1) requires an Officer in charge of a Police Station who from information
received or otherwise' has reason to suspect the commission of an offence - that is a
cognizable offence which he is empowered to investigate under Section 156, to forthwith
send a report to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a
police report and to either proceed in person or depute anyone of his subordinate officers
not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order,
prescribe in this behalf, to proceed to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances
of the case and if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender.
This provision is qualified by a proviso which is in two parts (a) and (b). As per clause
(a) the Officer in charge of a Police Station need not proceed in person or depute a
subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot if the information as to the

16
commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not
of a serious nature. According to clause (b), if it appears to the Officer in charge of a
Police Station that there is no sufficient ground for entering in an investigation, he shall
not investigate the case. Sub-section (2) of Section 157 demands that in each of the cases
mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 157, the
Officer in charge of the Police Station must state in his report, required to be forwarded
to the Magistrate his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements of sub-section
(1) and when the police officer decides not to investigate the case for the reasons
mentioned in clause (b) of the proviso, he in addition to his report to the Magistrate, must
forthwith notify to the informant, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by the
State Government, the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause the case to be
investigated. Section 156(1) which is to be read in conjunction with Section 157(1) states
that any Officer in charge of a Police Station may without an order of a Magistrate,
investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area
within the limits of the concerned police station would have power to enquire into or try
under provisions of Chapter Xlll: Section 156(3) vests a discretionary power on a
Magistrate empowered under S. 190 to order an investigation by a police officer as
contemplated @page-SC615 in Section 156(1). It is pertinent to note that this provision
does not empower a Magistrate to stop an investigation undertaken by the police.

In this context, we may refer to an observation of this Court in State of Bihar v.

Saldanha20 extending the power of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) to direct further
investigation after submission of a report by the investigating officer under Section
173(2) of the Code. The said observation reads thus:-

"The power of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) to direct further investigation
is clearly an independent power and does not stand in conflict with the power of the State
Government as spelt out hereinbefore. The power conferred upon the Magistrate under
Section 156(3) can he exercised by the Magistrate even after submission of a report by
the investigating officer which would mean that it would be open to the Magistrate not to
accept the conclusion of the investigating officer and direct further investigation. This
provision does not in any way affect the power of the investigating officer to further
investigate the case even after submission of the report as provided in Section 173(8)."

The Privy Council in Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad21, while dealing with the
statutory right of the police under Sections 154 and 156 of the Code within its province of
investigation of a cognizable offence has made the following observation:

“So it is of the utmost importance that the judiciary should not interfere with the
police in matters which are within their province and into which the law imposes
upon them the duty of enquiry. In India as has been shown there is a statutory right on
the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime
without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities, and it would, as their

20
(1980) 1 SCC 554
21
AIR 1945 PC 18

17
 Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with
those stautory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The
functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary not overlapping and the
combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be
obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always, of course, subject to
the right of the Court to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under Section
491, Criminal P. C. to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus. In such a case as
the present, however, the Court's functions begin when a charge is preferred before it
and not until then.”

Various Aspects of FIR.

1. The omissions in FIR are to he considered along with other evidence to determine
whether fact so omitted never happened at all.22

2. Some statements were made by the witness after lodging of the, FIR, but the same
was not recorded in the case diary because it was not deemed necessary. Court
held that non-availability of statement of that witness u/s 16l would not cause
prejudice to defence so not fatal to the prosecution.23

3. Mere non-examination of witness, does not materially affect prosecution case

before the Court.24

4. F.I.R to a Police Officer: If any information disclosed before Police Officer, the
Police Officer is liable to register a case on the basis of such information.25

5. Accused entitled to certified copy: F.I.R. is public document and accused is

entitled to certified copy of the same.26

6. Statement becoming the FlR: Murder took place in a busy market place.
Deceased was taken to hospital by his brother. Constable on duty at the hospital
sent telephonic message to the police station. Police Sub-Inspector reached the
hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased's brother who named the
accused as the assailant. It was held that this statement was to be considered as the
F.I.R. and not the (earlier) cryptic telephonic message from the constable.27

7. Delay in lodging FIR: Such delay does not matter to the Court if the offence is
properly explained with nature of facts and circumstances. The court giving

22
Rattan Singh v. State of HP, 1997 (1) Supreme (Cr.) 4; See also State of Rajasthan v. Ani alias Hanif, 1997 Cr LJ
1529
(SC); AIR 1997 SC 1023. See also Harkirat Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1997 SC 3231.
23
Meharban & Ors. v. State of MP, 1997 Cr LJ 76& (SC).
24 Habil Mia v. State of T ripura, 1997 Cr LJ 1866 (Gau).
25 State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 (SC) 601.
26
Jayantibhai Lalubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 1992 CrLJ 2377 (Guj).
27
Ramsinh Bavaji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat,, 1994 Cr LJ 3067 (SC).

18
 importance to the reluctance of the family member of prosecutrix and herself and
repetition, honour of the family.28

8. The delay in lodging the first information report should be properly explained.29

9. F.I.R. recorded in small hours of next day of murder is no delay.30

10. Delay in sending F.I.R: When F.I.R. was recorded at 3.25 p.m. and dispatched
next morning to Magistrate there was no delay in sending F.I.R.31

11. Delay in dispatching of F.I.R: Dispatching of F.I.R. to Magistrate after three

days of its recording without any explanation for delay will support defence
contention that F.I.R. was after thought.32

12. Cognizable offence--Information regarding Cognizability: Information

relating to commission of a cognizable offence was given to officer-in-charge of a
police station who refused to receive and record the same in writing. In such a
case Superintendent of Police, to whom such refusal was informed, should act in
terms of Chapter XlI of Cr.P.C. on being satisfied that information placed before
him disclosed commission of cognizable offence.33

13. Evidence: Non-mention of name of accused in F.I.R. and inquest report by

witness cannot be a ground for rejecting his evidence.34

14. Adverse inference: No adverse inference can be drawn when relations of

deceased reach scene of occurrence instead of informing the police.35

15. Message on telephone: Given on Telephone as cognizable offence, reduced in

writing and signed by complainant, it amounts to F.I.R.36

16. Non-mention of name of witness: If the name of the eye-witness to the

occurrence is given in the F.I.R. that increases the credibility of the information.
However, non-mention of such witness does not render the information
unreliable.37

Quashing Of FIR Before Investigation Begins

28
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh & Others, AIR 1996 SC 1393.
29 Kanhiyalal v. State of Rajasthan, 1989 Cr LJ 1482 : AIR 1989 SC 1515.
30 B. Subba Roo v. Public Prosecutor, H.C. of AP., Hyd., AIR 1997 SC 3427.
31 Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 1328.
32
Madru Singh v. State of M.P. , AIR 1997 SC 3527.
33 P. Natarajan v. Station House Officer, (1991) 1 Crimes 15 (Mad).
34 Eqbal Baig v. State of AP., 1987 Cr 838.
35
Kunjam NadarRadhakrishnan v. State, 1990 Cr LJ (NOC) 6 (Ker) (DB).
36
S.G. Gundegowda v. State, 1996 Cr LJ 852 (Kar).
37
Puthuparambil Papachan alias Thomas v. State of Kerala, 1994 Cr LJ 334 (Ker).

19
In Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana38 Chandrachud, J while disapproving the
quashing of a First Information Report at premature stage has expressed his view as
follows:

"It surprises us in the extreme that the High Court thought that in the exercise of
its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it could quash
a First Information Report. The Police had not even commenced investigation into the
complaint filed by the Warden of the University and no proceeding at all was pending in
any Court in pursuance of the F. I. R. It ought to be realized that inherent powers do not
confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice.
That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest
of rare cases."

The Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. J. A. C. Saldanha39, examined the

question whether, when the investigation was in progress, the High Court was justified in
interfering with the investigation and prohibiting or precluding further investigation in
exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. On the
facts of that case, this Court set aside the order of the High Court quashing the order of
the Magistrate in postponing the consideration of the report submitted to him till the final
report of completion of further investigation, directed by the State Government was
submitted to him and held that the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction
committed a grave error in giving the direction virtually amounting to mandamus to close
the case before the investigation was complete.

The classic exposition of the law is found in State of West Bengal v. Swapan
Kumar Guha40, In this case, Chandrachud, CJ in his concurring separate judgment has
stated that "if the FIR does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the
Court would be justified in quashing the investigation on the basis of the information as
laid or received". Justice A.P. Sen who wrote the main judgment in that case with which
Chandrachud, CJ and Varadarajan, J. agreed has laid the legal proposition as follows:

"The legal position is well-settled. The legal position appears to be that if an

offence is disclosed, the Court will not normally interfere with an investigation into the
case and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed; if, however,
the materials do not disclose an offence, no investigation should normally be permitted.
Once an offence is disclosed, an investigation into the offence must necessarily follow in
the interests of justice. If, however, no offence is disclosed, an investigation cannot be
permitted, as any investigation, in the absence of any offence being disclosed, will result
in unnecessary harassment to a party, whose liberty and property may be put to jeopardy
for nothing. The liberty and property of any individual are sacred and sacrosanct and the
Court zealously guards them and protects them.

38
(1977) 4 SCC 451
39
AIR 1980 SC 326
40
AIR 1982 SC 94

20
CONCLUSION

On the basis of the analysis produced in the paper. We would like to make some sug-
gestions with respect to the issues discussed in the present study. As has been discussed.
FIR is an extremely vital report, which sets the criminal investigation into motion. Also,
being the earliest report it is a valuable piece of evidence in any criminal trial either for
corroborating evidence or for contradicting witnesses. Therefore, it becomes necessary
that such report be recorded in all circumstances especially where the person has come to
the police station to lodge an FIR against a particular crime. But. a clear reading of S. 154
does not put any ri1imdat on the Police Officer to lodge an FIR. The provision merely
stops by saying that in case of any refusal on part of the officer-in-charge the informant
may report the matter to the Superintendent of Police who will then take necessary
actions. In such circumstances in most of the cases the report would not be taken into
cognizance of land consequently no action would be taker as regards the crime.

Thus, it is highly recommended that In case of a refusal to lodge the FIR by the Police
Officer stringent action should be taken against such officer by higher-authorities' of the
Police Department. in terms of departmental inquiry etc. for the dereliction of duty on
part of such Police Officer. It Is also suggested that the provision (that is S. 154 Cr.P.C.)
should be strictly interpreted by considering "shall" as "must" for all reasons and thereby
mandating the Police Officers to take down the report given' by an informant. Also
frequent visits should be made to the police stations by senior Police Officers to see that
there has been no dereliction of duties by, the officers-in-charge and other men In that
police station. Grievance, if any of the., people in that locality against the working of the
Police Officers should be given a careful hearing and appropriate action should be taken
against them.

Further, so far as the issue of anonymous telephone messages is concerned as has

already been discussed in the project they are for no reason to be considered a cryptic
merely because certain procedural requirements as mentioned in Section 154(such as
signature of the informant. etc.) has not been met with. Any complaint if it discloses the
correct facts about the commission of an offence should be considered a valid FIR and
the Police Officer should initiate an investigation soon after receiving such complaint. It
is the duty of every Police Officer to prevent the commission of crimes and maintain law
and order in the society, and should also provide protection to the citizens. Thus, by
considering an anonymous telephone FIR to be a mere crank or cryptic" message, the
police cannot ignore such information. Perhaps, the person would not have been in a
position to disclose his/her identity. Of perhaps he/she would not like to disclose his/her
identity to prevent getting into any investigative inquiry by the police and hence he/she
gave anonymous message to the police. Therefore, police officer without considering all
these immaterial issues regarding FIRs such as name for the informant signature of the
informant. etc. should Immediately take action against the crime reported. Since FIR is
the first information about a crime, such telephone message being earliest in time should
be considered as FIR and any statement recorded thereafter should be considered as
statements made during the investigation thus being hit by Section 162 of Evidence Act.

21
 Conclusively, it can be said that FIR is an important report and if duly recorded
provides a valuable evidence in a case to whatever extent possible, such information
should be lodged with the police as soon as one gets to know about an offence having
been committed. In this way citizens can help the police In preventing crimes and
maintaining law and order in the society, who would got otherwise get to know about the
commission of a crime while sitting in the police station.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

 Miller, H and Wright, R. “Criminal Procedure” , Aspen Law and Business.

 Rao, M.S., “Criminal Trial Practice and Procedure”, 4th edn, S. Gogia and Co,
Hyderabad, 1999.

 Kelkar R.V. “ Criminal Procedure”, 4th edition, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow.

 Sohani, G., Code of Criminal Procedure, 19th Ed., Eastern Book Co, 1973.

 Sarkar, P. C., Sarkar on Criminal Procedure, 6th Ed., India Law House, 1994.

 Chandrachud, Y. V. & Manohar, V. R., ed., Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 15th Ed., Wadhwa and Co., 1999.

Secondary Sources
1. http:// www. manupatra.com
2. http://www.outlookindia.com
3. http://www.timesofindia.indiatimes.com
4. http://www.indianexpress.com
5. http://www.lexisnexis.com
6. http: // www.kiranbedi.com

22