First Information

Report
 Index
1. Introduction
2. Definition
3. Format of the F.I.R
4. Salient features
5. Evidentiary value of F.I.R
6. Object of the F.I.R
7. Effect of belated F.I.R when fatal
8. Delay in despatch of F.I.R
9. Delay in giving information
10. There can be no second F.I.R
11. Quashing of F.I.R- Inherent power by HC retrieved by
SC
12. F.I.R to be a “Public Document”
13. Relevant case laws
14. Conclusion
15. Bibliography
INTRODUCTION
Criminal law occupies a predominant place among the agencies of social control and is regarded
as a formidable weapon that society has forged to protect it self against anti-social behavior.
Criminal Procedure is an inseparable part of the panel law and the effectiveness of the latter
depends much upon the proper implementation of the former.
The criminal law has been described as one of the most faithful mirrors of the modern society
reflecting the fundamental values on which the later rests.

DEFINITION

FIR has not been defined in the Cr.PC. In fact is the information relating to the commission of a
cognizable offence that reaches the officer –in –charge of the Police Station first in point of time.
F.I.R. is a very valuable document. It is of utmost legal importance , both form the point of view
of the prosecution and the defence. F.I.R. constitutes the “foundation “ of the case in the first
instance and whole of the case is built on it . If the foundation is week , then the prosecution case
will tumble down . If on the other hand , is strong if will endure the attacks of the accused and
his counsel.
On receipt of such information the S.H.O. of the Police Station is legally required to draw up a
regular F.I.R. in from prescribed by the State Government vide Sec. 154 Cr.PC. When any
information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before the officer–in – charge of Police
Station , he has no option but to register the case on the basis thereof ( State of Haryana Vs Ch.
Bhajan Lal1).

 What is an FIR?
First Information Report (FIR) is a written document prepared by the police when they receive
information about the commission of a cognizable offence. It is a report of information that
reaches the police first in point of time and that is why
it is called the First Information Report.
It is generally a complaint lodged with the police by the victim of a cognizable offence or by
someone on his/her behalf.
Anyone can report the commission of a cognizable offence either orally or in writing to the
police. Even a telephonic message can be treated as an FIR.

 Why is FIR important?

An FIR is a very important document as it sets the process of criminal justice in motion. It is
only after the FIR is registered in the police station that the police takes up investigation of the
case.

 Who can lodge an FIR?

Anyone who knows about the commission of a cognizable offence can file an FIR. It is not
necessary that only the victim of the crime should file an FIR. A police officer who comes to
know about a cognizable offence can file an FIR himself/herself.

 What is the procedure of filing an FIR?

The procedure of filing an FIR is prescribed in Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973.

* When information about the commission of a cognizable offence is given orally, the police
must write it down.

* It is your right as a person giving information or making a

complaint to demand that the information recorded by the police is read over to you.

* Once the information has been recorded by the police, it must be signed by the person giving
the information.

* You should sign the report only after verifying that the information recorded by the police is as
per the details given by you.

1 AIR1992 SC 604, 1992 Cr.LJ 527

* People who cannot read or write must put their left thumb impression on the document after
being satisfied that it is a correct record.

* Always ask for a copy of the FIR, if the police do not give it to you. It is your right to get it free
of cost.

 What should you mention in the FIR?

* Your name and address;

* Date, time and location of the incident you are reporting;
* The true facts of the incident as they occurred;
* Names and descriptions of the persons involved in the incident;

"154. Information in cognizable cases. -

(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an
officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and
be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced
to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be
entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe
in this behalf.

(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of
cost, to the informant.

(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to
record the information referred to in sub- section (1) may send the substance of such information,
in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such
information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case
himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the
manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge
of the police station in relation to that offence.''

Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. contains four mandates to an officer in-charge of a
police station. The first enjoins that every information relating to commission of a cognizable
offence if given orally shall be reduced to writing and the second directs that it be read over to
the informant; the third requires that every such information whether given in writing or reduced
to writing shall be signed by the informant and the fourth is that the substance of such
information shall be entered in the station house diary.2

FORMAT OF THE F.I.R

Book No._________
FORM NO. 24.5 (1)
FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

First Information of a Cognizable Crime Reported under Section 154, Cr.P.C Police
Station………………. District…………………… No……………….Date and hour of
Occurrence…………………

1. Date and hour when reported

2. Name and residence of informer and complainant.
3. Brief description of offence (with section) and of property carried off, if any.
4. Place of occurrence and distance and direction from the Police Station.
5. Name & Address of the Criminal.
6. Steps taken regarding investigation explanation of delay in regarding information.
7. Date and Time of dispatch from Police Station.

Signature……………………………..

Designation…………………………..

(First information to be recorded below)

NOTE: - The signature of seal or thumb impression of the informer should be at the end of the
information and the signature of the Writer of (FIR) should be existed as usual.

F.I.R-- Salient Features

1. Information of cognizable Information offence can be given by any person to police

having jurisdiction

2. Despite F.I.R is outside the mischief of section 162 of Cr.P.C, still it is not substantive
piece of evidence; that is, it cannot vouch safe the truth of its contents. It has to be duly
proved as any other fact by evidence.

2 T.T.ANTONY Vs. STATE OF KERALA & ORS

 3. Police officer shall reduce such information in writing

4. Informant's signature must be obtained

5. the contents of such information should be read over to Informant

6. such information must be entered in record by the police officer

7. Police officer shall give a copy of such information to the informant forthwith

8. Original F.I.R must be sent to the Magistrate forthwith

9. Despite a police officer refuses to register F.I.R, the aggrieved person can send such
information to the Superintend of Police by post.

10. If F.I.R is made immediately after the occurrence of an incident, when the memory of
the person giving it is fresh in his mind about the occurrence, the sanctity of such F.I.R
will be increased. That too, F.I.R must not be made during the investigation.

Evidentiary Value of FIR

The value of F.I.R depends on the circumstances of each case, nature of the crime, information
and opportunity of witnessing the offence (AIR 1973 SC 476)

F.I.R can be used:

1. F. I. R. is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used either for corroboration

under Section 157, or for contradiction under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, of the
maker of the statement. (State Of Orissa vs Chakradhar Behera And Ors, AIR 1964 Ori
262,)

2. It is a well settled law that the F.I.R. by itself cannot be used as a substantive piece of
evidence and it can only be used as a contradiction or corroboration thereof.

3. In some cases, F.I.R can be used as Dying Declaration.( Relevant section 32 (1) of Indian
Evidence Act)
 4. If F.I.R is given by accused, it cannot be used either for corroboration or contradiction in
case it is affected by section 25 of Indian Evidence Act.

5. F.I.R can be used to prove motive.

6. F.I.R can be used to prove previous conduct of accused

7. F.I.R can be used to show subsequent conduct of accused

8. F.I.R can be used for cross-examination of informant who gave such information.

9. F.I.R got recorded by the police has been taken as dying declaration by the honorable
Supreme Court, when the person did not survive to get his dying declaration recorded.

10. Act of investigation and filing charge sheet are separate.

11. Whether investigation commenced or not is a question of fact.

12. F.I.R recorded bu investigation officer as narrated by eye witnesses, court should not
start with a presumption that it was false or fabricated.

13. F.I.R recorded in course of investigation of cognizable offence -- Inadmissible.

14. F.I.R quashed due to inordinate delay in investigation not to be interfered with.

15. Person lodging F.I.R entitled to hearing , when on the basis of Police report, Magistrate
prefers to drop proceedings instead of taking cognizance of offence.

Object of the First Information Report

In the case of Habib v State of Bihar3, the court said that the principle object of the first
information report from the point of view of the information is to set the criminal law in motion
and from the point of view of the investigating authorities is to obtain information about the
commission of a cognizable offence with a view to take suitable steps for tracing and bringing to
book the offender.

3 AIR 1972 SC 283

In the case of P.Sirajuddin v State of Madras4 it has been held that another equally important
object of recording of the first information report is to obtain an early information of an alleged
offence from the informant and to put into writing the statement before his memory fails or
before he gets the time and opportunity to embellish it. The information so obtained is very
important for the accused also inasmuch as he is entitled to know what were the facts stated
immediately after the occurrence to connect him with the crime. It safeguards him against
subsequent variations, additions and alterations.

Effect of belated F.I.R. when fatal.:''

 Now first information report is a report relating to the commission. of an offence given to
the police and recorded by it under s. 154, Cr. P.C. As observed by the Privy Council in H.E.
v. Khwaja(1) the receipt and recording of information report by the police is not a condition
precedent to the setting in motion of a criminal investigation. Nor does the statute provide
that such information report can only be made by an eye witness. First information report
under s. 154 is not even considered a substantive piece of evidence. It can only be used to
corroborate or contradict the informant's evidence in court. But this information when
recorded is the basis of the case set up by the informant. It is very useful if recorded before
there is time and opportunity to embellish or before the informant's memory fades. Undue or
unreasonable delay in lodging the F.I.R., therefore, inevitably gives rise to suspicion which
puts the court on guard to look for the possible motive and the explanation for the delay and
consider its effect on the trustworthiness or otherwise of the prosecution version. In our
opinion, no duration of time in the abstract can be fixed as reasonably for giving information
of a crime to the police, the question of reasonable time being a matter for determination by
the court in each case. Mere delay in lodging the first information report with the police is,
therefore, not necessarily, as a matter of law, fatal to the prosecution. The effect of delay in
doing so in the light of the plausibility of the explanation for the coming for such delay
accordingly must fall for consideration on all the facts and circumstances of a given case.5''

4 AIR 1971 SC 520

5 APREN JOSEPH ALIAS CURRENT KUNJUKUNJU & ORS. Vs.THE STATE OF KERALA; Citations: 1973 AIR, 1 1973 SCR (2) 16
 '' The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu6 stressed the
importance of making prompt report to the police regarding the commission of cognizable
offence. It was observed : "First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital
and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating, the oral evidence adduced at
the trial. The importance of 'the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint
of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in
respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the
circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the
part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene, of occurrence.
Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a
creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage
of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version exaggerated account
or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that
the delay in lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained."

Delay in despatch of FIR

'' Fabricated and delayed FIR as a matter of fact has been the basic submission in support of the
appeal. it is now, however, well settled and we need not dilate on this score over again that mere
delay cannot be said to be fatal to a criminal prosecution. First Information Report cannot but be
termed to be the starting point and thus sets in motion of a criminal investigation. In this context
the observation of this Court in Apren Joseph alias Current Kunjukunju & others vs. The State
of Kerala seems to be rather apposite. In paragraph 11 of the report this Court stated as below: ".
Now first information report is a report relating to the commission of an offence given to the
police and recorded by it under Section 154, Cr.P.C. As observed by the Privy Council in
Emperor v. Khwaja the receipt and recording of information report by the police is not a
condition precedent to the setting in motion of a criminal investigation. Nor does the statute
provide that such information report can only be made by an eyewitness. First information report

6 Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 1971 decided on February 25, 1972

under S. 154 is not even considered a substantive piece of evidence. It can only be used to
corroborate or contradict the informant's evidence in court. But this information when recorded
is the basis of the case set up by the informant. It is very useful if recorded before there is time
and opportunity to embellish or before the informant's memory fades. Undue or unreasonable
delay in lodging the FIR, therefore, inevitably gives rise to suspicion which puts the court on
guard to look for the possible motive and the explanation for the delay and consider its effect on
the trustworthiness or otherwise of the prosecution version. In our opinion, no duration of time in
the abstract can be fixed as reasonable for giving information of a crime to the police, the
question of reasonable time being a matter for determination by the court in each case. Mere
delay in lodging the first information report with the police is, therefore, not necessarily, as a
matter of law, fatal to the prosecution. The effect of delay in doing so in the light of the
plausibility of the explanation forthcoming for such delay accordingly must fall for consideration
on all the facts and circumstances of a given case7."

Delay in giving information:

"First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence
for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the
report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting
upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to
obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the
names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses
present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often
results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not
only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured
version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is
therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be
satisfactorily explained.8"

7 Munshi Prasad And Others VS State of Bihar; Citations: AIR 2001 SC 3031, 2001 (2) ALD Cri 882

8 In the case of ''Madhukar Dattoba Jadhav and another VS The State of Maharastra '', it was observed that ''The Supreme Court in the case of
Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 1972 Cri.L.J. 1296, in Head Note (B) it is held thus:---
There can be no second FIR:

 '' In Meharaj Singh, The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India explained the consequences that
may ensue due to delay in dispatching FIR to the Magistrate in the following words : .One of
the checks is the receipt of the copy of the FIR, called a special report in a murder case, by
the local Magistrate. If this report is received by the Magistrate late it can give rise to an
inference that the FIR was not lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, unless,
of course the prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay in dispatching or
receipt of the copy of the FIR by the local Magistrate. Prosecution has led no evidence at all
in this behalf..9"

 '' In the case of T.T. Antony, it has been held by The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that
there can be no second FIR. While dealing with Section 154 and other relevant provisions,
this Court said: " An information given under sub-section (1) of Section 154 Cr.P.C is
commonly known as first information report (FIR) though this term is not used in the
Code. It is a very important document. And as its nickname suggests it is the earliest and the
first information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer in charge of a police station.
It sets the criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which
ends up with the formation of opinion under Section 169 or 170 Cr.P.C, as the case may be,
and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

 In the case of Ramesh Baburao Devaskar, The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it was
observed that " A First Information Report cannot be lodged in a murder case after the
inquest has been held10.''

 In Dharma Rama Bhagare v. State of Maharashtra, The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
held that FIR is never treated as a substantive piece of evidence; it can only be used for
corroborating or contradicting its maker when he appears in Court as a witness.

9 Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre & Ors Vs State of Maharashtra, it was observed .

10 Ramesh Baburao Devaskar's case

 In the case of Vikram and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, The Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India noticed : "It may be true that P.W. 2 had informed the officer in charge of the Police
Station on telephone, but the circumstances in which the said call had to be made has been
noticed by us hereto before. The Head Constable states that he had written down the same but
then it must have been a cryptic report and only for the purpose of visiting the scene of
occurrence. He as well as the Investigating Officer did not say that it was a detailed report. If,
in the aforementioned premise, another First Information Report which was a detailed one
came to be recorded, no exception can be taken to the same being treated as a First
Information Report."

Quashing of FIR – Inherent power of High Court Retrieved by Supreme

Court, Feb 20, 2012

The Supreme Court has recently ruled that the High Courts can quash an FIR against a person if
it did not prima facie disclose any offence. A two judge bench said that ordinarily criminal
proceedings instituted against an accused must be tried
and taken to logical conclusions under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and the High
Courts should be reluctant to interfere into the proceedings at an interlocutory stage.

"However, if upon the admitted facts and the documents relied upon by the complainant or the
prosecution and without weighing or sifting evidence, no case is made out, the criminal
proceedings instituted against the accused are required to be dropped or quashed", the bench
said. Where the allegations in the FIR or the complaint or the accompanying documents taken at
their face value, do not constitute the offence alleged, the person proceeded against in such a
frivolous criminal litigation has to be saved, ruled the bench.

One K. Ramakrishnan and others, senior officers of the United Bank of India, have been
arraigned as accused persons in the charge sheet submitted in a Patna court. They sought
discharge from the case on the ground that no case was disclosed either in the FIR or in the
documents, accompanying the final report submitted under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. Their plea
was rejected by the trial court and also by
the Patna High Court.

The apex court setting aside the High Court order, observed that the trial court under Section 239
and the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. did not
embark upon an inquiry as to whether evidence in question was reliable or not or evidence relied
upon was sufficient to proceed further or not. The inherent
powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC could be exercised to quash proceedings,
in appropriate cases either to prevent the abuse of the process of any courts or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice.11

12
At the same time, one has to keep in mind the subtle distinction between the power of
compounding of offences given to Court under Section 320 of the Code and quashing of criminal
proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction conferred upon it under
Section 482 of the Code. Once, it is found that compounding is permissible only if a particular
offence is covered by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code and the Court in such cases is
guided solitary and squarely by the compromise between the parties, in so far as power of
quashing under Section 482 of the Code is concerned, it is guided by the material on record as to
whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power, although the ultimate
consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.
Such a distinction is lucidly explained by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Gian Singh vs.
State of Punjab & Anr. Justice Lodha, speaking for the Court, explained the difference between
the two provisions in the following manner: “Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the
ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of
offence.

FIR to be a “Public Document” (Recent Circular by Kerala police, Feb 2016)

Jiju Luckose Versus State Of Kerala13,Petitioner, a resident of Ettumanoor was made an accused
in an alleging offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of the
petitioner's wife. Petitioner's parents are senior citizens and on registration of the FIR, the family
members were called upon to come to the police station. Although the FIR was registered ,
petitioner could obtain a copy of the FIR only after two months. Till the petitioner could obtain a
copy of the FIR, the petitioner and his family members were in dark about the nature of the
allegations leveled against the petitioner. Petitioner is in a job at the United States of America.
Petitioner's case in the Writ Petition is that the accused has no way of knowing whether the
complaint leveled against him is false or not. Once the FIR is lodged, unless the accused has
good contacts in police station there is no way of knowing even the number of the FIR. Delay in
getting copies of the FIR by the accused and delay in filing FIR in Court gives opportunity for
falsification of the FIR including modifying the FIR. There should be transparency with regard to
registering a crime and furnishing copy of the FIR and also uploading in the website.

According to Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Cr.P.C.”), an
accused is entitled for supply of copies of the FIR free of cost only when proceedings are

11 http://cbi.nic.in/dop/judgements/quash.pdf

12 http://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court-issues-fresh-guidelines-quashing-proceedings-non-compoundable-offence-basis-settlement-parties-read-
judgment/

13 WP(C).NO. 1240 OF 2015 (S), Judgment Dated- 30.11.2015

instituted by the Magistrate in the Court on the basis of police report. According to Section
173(7) of the Cr.P.C. when the Officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he
may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-section (5) of
Section 173. In the absence of copy of the FIR, the very right of the accused to get himself
defended cannot be fulfilled, since he is not in a position to know the nature of the allegations so
that he may approach the appropriate Forum for getting his right and liberty protected.
Petitioner's further case is that right to get information is part of fundamental right to freedom of
speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. Article 21
guarantees protection of life and personal liberty. A person against whom criminal offence is
alleged is under a threat of being apprehended by the police. Being under the threat of
apprehension by the police, he has right to get information as to the allegations leveled against
him. It is submitted that recording of FIR is an official act of a public official in discharge of his
official duties and hence it is a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the
Evidence Act, 1872.

Being a public document, the public officer shall give on demand certified copy thereof in terms
Section 76 of the Evidence Act. Petitioner's further case is that in view of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (for short, “the 2005 Act”) all public officers are under obligation to put
all information recorded in the public domain. The FIR which is lodged is to be put on the
website of the police station, so that any one can assess the FIR including a person staying
outside the country. Police is also obliged to accept the online application under the 2005 Act for
obtaining copy of the FIR. With the aforesaid pleadings, petitioner in the Writ Petition has
prayed for the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to initiate immediate steps to
ensure that they upload copy of the FIR on the official website of the concerned police station
immediately after it is registered, forthwith. ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to initiate immediate steps
to provide online copy of full FIR, including complaint copy, within 24 hours of registering the
FIR in the station. iii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction commanding the respondents to initiate immediate steps to provide certified copy of
FIR under the 'Life & Liberty' section of the Right to Information Act, to the accused within 48
hours of application at Police Station by paying necessary fees as prescribed under the act. iv.
Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
commanding respondents 3 and 4 to provide necessary instructions to the police stations in the
State to accept applications under the RTI Act for obtaining copies of FIR, even without quoting
FIR number in the application.

Later in 2016 a circular was passed by the Kerala police that F.I.R to be uploaded in the official
14

websites which will be available to the public and termed it as a “public Document”. But with
exceptional circumstances, that is , where cases falls under the POCSO Act of 2012,
S.375,S.376(A,B,C,D) of IPC, and other heinous crimes that come under the IPC provisions will
be exempted, “where the need to preserve the identity of the victim, the course of proper

14 Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/police-authorities-are-obliged-to-give-the-copy-of-fir-under-rti-application-kerala-hc/

investigation, the protection of witnesses and other aspects involving a predominant
consideration of public interest may warrant the FIR not being uploaded on the website.”

Relevant Case Laws

In Emperor vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad 15, the Privy Council spelt out the power of the
investigation of the police, as follows : "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 Lordships think, be an
unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an
exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court."This plenary power of the police to investigate
a cognizable offence is, however, not unlimited. It is subject to certain well recognised limitation.
One of them, is pointed out by the Privy Council, thus : "if no cognizable offence is disclosed,
and still more if no offence of any kind is disclosed, the police would have no authority to
undertake an investigation. "

In the case of Ravi kumar v State of Punjab16, the Supreme Court stated “the first information
report is a report giving information of the commission of the cognizable crime which may be
made by the complaint or by the complainant or by any other person knowing about the
commission of such offence. It is intended to set the criminal law in motion. Any information
relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is required to be reduced to writing by the
officer-in- charge of the police station which has to be signed by the person giving it and the
substance thereof is required to be entered into the book to be kept by such officer in such form
as the state government may prescribe in that behalf. The registration of the FIR empowers the
officer – in –charge of the police station to commence investigation with respect to the crime
reported to him. A copy of the FIR is required to be sent forthwith to the Magistrate empowered
to take cognizance of such offence.”

15 AIR (32) 1945 PC 18

16 AIR 2005 SC 1929

In Narangs' case, it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further
investigation with the permission of the Court. However, the sweeping power of investigation
does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of
the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of
successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. It
would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 Cr.P.C. nay, a case of abuse of the
statutory power of investigation in a given case.

Ravinder Kumar v. State of Punjab17: " When there is criticism of the ground that FIR in a case
was delayed the Court has to look at the reason why there was such a delay. There can be a
variety of genuine causes for FIR lodgment to get delayed. Rural people might be ignorant of the
need for informing the police of a crime without any lapse of time. This kind of
unconversantness is not too uncommon among urban people also. They might not immediately
think of going to the police station. Another possibility is due to lack of adequate transport
facilities for the informers to reach the police station. The third, which is a quite common
bearing, is that the kith and kin of deceased might take some appreciable time to regain a certain
level of tranquility of mind or sedativeness of temper for moving to the police station for the
purpose of furnishing the requisite information. Yet another cause is, the persons who are
supposed to give such information themselves could be physically impaired that the police had to
reach them on getting some nebulous information about the incident.'' delay in its lodgment
cannot be approved as a legal corollary. In any case, where there is delay in making the FIR the
court is to look at the causes are not attributable to any effort to concoct a version no
consequence shall be attached to the mere delay in lodging the FIR.

In Tara Singh V State of Punjab made the following observations: `It is well settled that the
delay in giving the FIR by itself cannot be ground to doubt the prosecution case.''

In Ram Kumar Pande Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh; HELD : '' The First Information
Report is a previous statement which, strictly speaking, can be only used to corroborate or
contradict the maker of it.18''
17( SC) 2001 Crl.L.J.4242,

18.1975 AIR 1026, 1975 SCR (3) 519

In Malikiat Singh And Ors. Vs. State Of Punjab; HELD: 1. The First Information Report is not
substantive evidence. It can be used only to contradict the maker thereof or for corroborating his
evidence and also to show that the implication of the accused was not an after- thought.

2. Since the examination of first information was dispensed with by consent F.I.R. became part
of the prosecution evidence19.

In Ram Jag And Others Vs. The State Of U.P.; HELD : It is true that witnesses cannot be called
upon to explain every hour's delay and a commonsense view has to be taken in ascertaining
whether the First Information Report was, lodged after an undue delay so as to afford enough
scope for manipulating evidence. Whether the delay is so long as to throw a cloud of suspicion
on the seeds of the prosecution must depend upon a variety of factors which would vary from
case to case. Even a long delay in filing report of an occurrence can be condoned if the witnesses
on whose evidence the prosecution relies have no motive for implicating the accused. On the
other hand, prompt filing of the report is not an unmistakable guarantee of the truthfulness of the
version of the prosecution20.

A fortiori, it is to be remembered that in the recent case, State of U.P Vs Krishna Mater &
Ors21, , it was held that FIR need not be an encyclopedia of minute details of the incident nor it
is necessary to mention therein the evidence on which prosecution proposes to rely at the trial.

Lalita Kumari v Govt. of Uttar Pradesh22 it was held:

1. i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information
discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible
in such a situation.

2. ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the
necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain
whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

19. 1991 SCR (2) 256, 1991 SCC (4) 341

2018.1974 AIR 606, 1974 SCR (3) 9

21 2010 (2) L.S 42 (SC)

22 (2014) 2 SCC 1
iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered.
In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such
closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must
disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.

1. iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is
disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if
information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.

2. v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the
information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any
cognizable offence.

3. vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend
on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary
inquiry may be made are as under:

4. a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes

5. b) Commercial offences

6. c) Medical negligence cases

7. d) Corruption cases

8. e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for

example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the
reasons for delay.

The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant
preliminary inquiry.

vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary
inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such
delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.

viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received
in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether
resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously
reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be
reflected.

Conclusion

Therefore, in view of various counter claims regarding registration or non-registration, what is

necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a
cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no
cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered
immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for
the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But,
if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no
other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of
registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is
genuine, whether the information is credible etc. These are the issues that have to be verified
during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is
merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.

If, after investigation, the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to
prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR.

Bibliography

1. “F.I.R, Criminal Justice and Supreme Court. Allied publication 2005 , Pp-05-19
2. R.V Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure, 6th edition, 2014, Eastern Book Company
3. Takwani, “Criminal Procedure”, ed.3, pg. 69 , lexis nexis student series
4. Introduction to F.I.R, Constitutional responsibility of the State, administration of
Criminal Justice through police & Judiciary ( online PDF)
5. http://www.lawctopus.com/academike/registration-fir/