Section 154 CrPC

By Rachit Garg - August 17, 2022

This article has been written by Ayush Tiwari, a student of Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA.
This article elaborates upon Section 154 CrPC, 1973, its fundamentals, procedure of filing
an FIR, and difference between Section 155 and 161 CrPC.

Introduction
First Information Report (FIR), or the first information of a cognizable offence to the officer
in charge of a police station, is covered under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Although the word “FIR” is not defined in the Code, it refers to oral
information on the conduct of a cognizable offence that is provided to the police at the
earliest possible moment. An FIR is not intended to be fully detailed; rather, it is intended to
initiate the criminal justice system. The information provided to the police officer in order to
register a case may be true and accurate.

An FIR is an essential document for both parties (prosecution and defence). It serves as the
case’s initial foundation. The prosecution case will collapse if the foundation is weak.

Investigation is one of the crucial tasks that the police perform. The goal of an investigation
is to gather evidence and arrest the wrongdoer. Police investigations are covered under
Sections 154 to 176 of Chapter XII of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973, which is titled
“Information to Police and Their Power of Investigation.”
Section 154 CrPC
Since the information obtained under Section 154 is referred to as FIR, it is crucial to
understand the rules governing the process for recording information in relation to offences
that are cognizable.

If the information is provided verbally to a police officer in charge of a police station, that
official is required to reduce it in writing. The informant should then read it over and sign
it thereafter. The information obtained in this way must be entered in a book called the
“book of records” that has been approved by the state administration.

The informant must receive a free copy of the information that was recorded.

The aggrieved party may send the information to the Superintendent of Police if the
officer in charge refuses to record it. If the Superintendent of Police is satisfied that the
cognizable offence has been committed, he or she will either conduct the investigation
himself or instruct a subordinate police officer to do so. In relation to the relevant
offence, this police officer will have all the authority of an officer in command of the
police station.

A woman police officer or any woman officer must record the statement made by a woman
where it relates to any of the offences under Sections 326-A, 326-B, 354, 354-A to 354-D,
376, 376-A to 376-E, or 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 that are claimed to have been
committed or attempted.

What is a cognizable offence

Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure defines a cognizable offence. A cognizable
offence is one in which a police officer can make an arrest without the need for a warrant or
the consent or order of the magistrate in line with the First Schedule or any other statute
currently in effect.

According to Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in order to initiate an investigation
into a cognizable offence or case, a police officer must first receive the First Information
Report (FIR) pertaining to the cognizable offence, which can be acquired without the
Magistrate’s authorization, and enter it in the general diary.

What is a non-cognizable offence

The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 defines a non-cognizable offence as one for which the
police lack the legal right to make an arrest without a warrant.

According to Section 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, if a police officer obtains
information on the commission of a non-cognizable offence, he is required to record the
case’s details in the station diary and direct the informant to contact the relevant
magistrate.
It is crucial for the police officer to have the magistrate’s approval before beginning an
inquiry in a non-cognizable offence.

Scope and application of Section 154 CrPC

The first statement made by a person who reports an offence to the police is of great
significance since it is usually the true account of what happened, provided at the earliest
opportunity with little time for embellishment or fabrication. This section outlines the
procedures for timely and accurate information recording. It requires the police officer in
charge to follow specific instructions and procedures for documenting the initial report. The
following conditions apply to the initial information recorded:
1. The information must relate to the commission of a cognizable offence and must be
specific enough for the police to begin an investigation. The information must be relevant
to the conduct of an offence that is cognizable on its own terms, not just in the context of
later events.

2. It must be the information supplied to the officer in charge of a police station (who is
authorised by Section 154 to register an FIR), any other police officer (such as an officer
of the Anti-Corruption Police), or the Superintendent of Police, who is authorised by
subsection (3).

3. It must be the first complaint of the offence to a police officer made with the view of his
acting in the manner described in its written documentation. In Soma Bhai v. State of
Gujarat (1975) When the A.S.I. received a report about the incident and the A.S.I. asked
the police station for guidance over the phone then before putting it in writing, it was the
report that was put in writing by the police station in the FIR, rather than the telephonic
message, that made up the FIR.

4. It needs to be reduced in writing and have the informant’s signature. Therefore, even if it
was the first time, a coded and anonymous oral communication sent over the phone
cannot be considered an FIR. However, the Rajasthan High Court noted in Tehal Singh v.
the State of Rajasthan (1978) that if the telephonic message had been given to the
officer in charge of a police station, the person providing the message is an ascertained
one or is capable of being ascertained; the information has been reduced into writing as
required by Section 154 Cr.P.C.; it was a faithful record of such information and the
information reveals the commission of a cognizable offence and therefore was not cryptic
or incomplete in essential details, and it would constitute FIR.

5. It is the information that forms the foundation of the investigation, as opposed to

information the police receive after the investigation has begun, which is covered by
Sections 161–162 of the 1973 Code and does not constitute a First Information Report
(FIR), even if the person who made the subsequent statement may have been the FIR’s
original informant.

6. It must not be ambiguous or unclear. According to the Supreme Court of India in the case
of State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh (1998), “the purpose of an FIR is just to set the
investigation agency in motion, it must neither be too ambiguous nor too imprecise, yet
non-mentioning of specifics of each and every aspect is not a floor to dismiss the case of
the prosecution.”

7. The information’s substance must be put in a required book at the end of the process of
filing an FIR.

It is not necessary for the informant to know exactly who committed the offence, when it
was done, or what the circumstances were when filing an FIR. It is the investigation’s goal
to learn more about these issues. Whether the information is eligible under Section 154
depends on the law; it is not up to the station officer to decide whether to treat it that way
or not.

In Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. (2013), a five-member bench found that Section
154(1)’s requirements must be followed and that the official in question has a responsibility
to file the case on the basis of information indicating the conduct of a cognizable offence. In
plain English, it is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is indicated in the provided
material, the FIR need not be filed right away, and the police may instead undertake a
preliminary investigation for the sole purpose of determining whether or not a cognizable
offence has been committed. The informant must be told within seven days after the
preliminary inquiry’s conclusion whether or not the FIR should be filed, and if not, why, as
the Court has indicated in various areas such as family disputes, medical negligence cases,
etc. However, there is also a safety net provided. The requirement to file an FIR has several
benefits, including serving as the first step in a victim’s “access to justice,” upholding the
rule of law, facilitating quick investigations, and preventing exploitation in criminal
proceedings in many ways.

Object of Section 154 CrPC

According to the section, the main goal of the First Information Report (FIR) is to initiate
criminal proceedings, and according to the investigating authorities, it is to gather
information about the alleged criminal activity in order to take appropriate action to find and
prosecute those responsible.

The other objects of recording an FIR include:

To inform the District Magistrate and the District Superintendent of Police, who are
responsible for upholding safety and tranquillity in the district, about the offence that was
reported at the police station.

To secure and defend the accused against additions or changes in the future.

Procedure of filing an FIR under Section 154 CrPC

Whoever has knowledge of the commission of an offence that is cognizable may disclose it
to the police, and Section 154 of the Code specifies how this information should be
documented. Section 154 of the Code, the Police Act, 1861 and the rules of criminal practice
established by the relevant high courts can all be used to determine how to register an FIR.
An examination of Section 154 reveals the following:
 An officer in charge of a police station with jurisdiction over the case must receive the
information to investigate.

If the information is provided to the officer verbally, it must be converted to writing by

the officer in charge or by someone else with his approval.

If the information is provided in writing or is reduced to writing as described above, the

informant must sign it.

The informant must verify the information that has been recorded in writing.

The police officer is next required to record the information’s main points in a book he
keeps in the format specified. Station Diary, General Diary, or Roz Namchara are the
names of this book. (Police Act, 1861 ).

The information, as it was documented in the aforementioned way will then be

immediately delivered to the informant in a copy.

Contents of an FIR
FIR serves as the very foundation for the investigation and provides a means of ensuring
swift and proper justice. Therefore, it is crucial that the following elements be covered in the
FIR in a straightforward manner without any ambiguity.

The complainant’s name and address;

Information on the incident’s date, time, and place;

The incident’s actual facts as they happened;

The identities and descriptions of those engaged;

Details of witnesses, if any.

The Parliament added sub-section(2) to Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code in order
to preserve the version made by the informant at the earliest possible moment from any
claims of tampering with it and to shield it from any ensuing changes or additions.

Remedy on refusal to register FIR under Section 154

CrPC
Anyone attempting to file an FIR should be aware that only cognizable offences can be filed
under Section 154, not non-cognizable offences. He should thus confirm that the offence is
of a cognizable character. The police are required to file an FIR after learning of a cognizable
offence from the informant.

In the case of Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court of India found
that the official in charge of a police station is required by law to open an investigation after
receiving information about an offence that is cognizable.
In the case of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the Supreme Court of India ruled that the
validity, dependability, and trustworthiness of the information are not reasons to forgo
registering it. In the event of a cognizable offence, the police may occasionally refuse to file
a first information report. This may be lawful or unlawful. When they lack the authority to
do so or the offence is not one that can be recognised, it will be deemed legal. However, it is
against the law when the police decline to register the case for obvious reasons without any
convincing legal support. The informant must be instructed to submit a complaint with the
magistrate if the police officer declines to register the FIR on the grounds that it exposes a
non-cognizable offence. Information should be documented and sent to the local police
station with jurisdiction, and if the offence was committed outside of the jurisdiction of the
local police station, then it should be forwarded to an appropriate one; failing to do so would
be a breach of duty.

In the 1993 case State of A.P. v. Punati Ravulu, the Supreme Court of India ruled that a
public official’s failure to record information constitutes a breach of duty. According to this
case, the Superintendent of Police, under Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C., or another police
officer mentioned in Section 36 of this Code should be contacted as a person’s initial course
of action if they have a grievance that their FIR has not been recorded by the police station.
If the Superintendent of Police is certain that the information reveals the commission of a
cognizable offence, he must either personally investigate the matter or order a subordinate
police officer to do so in accordance with the Code’s specified procedures. Furthermore, it
states that the subordinate police officer who is looking into the offence will have all the
authority of a police station officer in connection to that offence .

Who can lodge an FIR

Any person who has knowledge of the commission of a cognizable offence may file an FIR.
No matter how small the offence, as long as it is a cognizable offence, the police officer in
charge must file an FIR. If a police officer learns about the commission of any offence that is
punishable by law, they may independently file an FIR. In other words, anyone can submit
an FIR. against a person or persons:

Who committed the offence;

Who is aware that an offence has been committed;

Who witnessed the offence being committed;

Someone who is in possession of knowledge regarding an offence.

Therefore, it is obvious that an FIR might originate from any source. Even an anonymous
letter submitted to the authorities informing them of an offence may be considered a formal
complaint. It is not essential for only the eyewitness to file it, nor is it necessary for the
informant to have firsthand knowledge of the offence.
An FIR filed by the accused
The individual who first filed the FIR alleging a murder later turned out to be the accused,
then his report will not be the first information report as it was confessional and is an
admission from him of particular facts that are relevant to the topic at hand, like how and
by whom the murder was committed, as found by the court. If the accuser’s admission in
the court contests the accuracy of a particular claim made regardless of whether the FIR is
valid or not, the prosecution witnesses demonstrate his guilt as evidenced by his pertinent
confessions.

Where to file an FIR

FIR is to be filed at the police station nearest the scene of the offence . An FIR cannot be
denied by a police station. One should be aware that each police station has a jurisdictional
area that includes the areas where they are allowed to look into offence s and offences.

Delay in lodging FIR

The fact that the FIR was delayed in being filed cannot, by itself, cast doubt on the
prosecution’s case. It is not advisable to anticipate that people will rush to the police station
right away following an incident given the state of mind they are in. It may not always occur
to them that they should provide a report since they are grieving over the tragedy. In these
circumstances, it is only normal that they would need some time to travel to the police
station and file a report. The court cannot dismiss the prosecution’s version as stated in the
FIR and thereafter supported by the evidence only on the basis of delay unless there are
indications of fabrication. It could not be argued that there was an excessive or
unreasonable delay in filing the FIR given the number of conflicts that day.

According to the ruling in the case of Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh (2003), there is no set
deadline for submitting a police report. A simple delay in filing an FIR cannot serve as a
defence alone for destroying the credibility of the whole prosecution case. The court must
examine the delay and seek an explanation for it. If the wait is justified to the court’s
satisfaction, it cannot be used against the prosecution’s case. When eyewitnesses are
credible and dependable, a simple FIR filing delay would not be sufficient to invalidate the
prosecution’s whole case. If the substantive evidence suggests the accused’s participation in
the offence is otherwise trustworthy and persuasive, a simple delay in filing the FIR would
not be a determinant.

In the case of Shree Kant Shekari v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2004), the Supreme Court
made the following observation:

“When there are rape accusations, delay in and of itself is not a mitigating element for the
accused.” The failure to file a first information report on time cannot be used as a ritualistic
pretext for dismissing the prosecution’s case and casting doubt on its truthfulness. It just
alerts the Court to look for and weigh any possible justifications for the delay. The Court’s
only job after it is provided is to determine whether it is acceptable or not. It is a relevant
element if the prosecution cannot satisfactorily explain the delay and there is a chance that
their version of events may have been embellished or exaggerated as a result. However, a
convincing justification for the delay is sufficient to disprove any allegation of
misrepresentation or the weakness of the prosecution’s case.

Delay in cases of sexual offences

The prosecutrix or her family members’ unwillingness to go to the police and report the
occurrence, which affects the prosecutrix’s reputation and the honour of the family, might
be one of many reasons why a case of a sexual offence results in a delay in filing an FIR,
which the courts cannot ignore. In a community with strong traditional values, some delay
in filing an FIR in rape cases is normal to prevent harassment, which is unavoidable when a
woman’s reputation is at stake.

The complainant in the case of Ram Swarup v. State of UP (2011), was a foreign national.
The woman was in shock following the rape committed on her by two people, and it wasn’t
until she called the Italian Embassy and got guidance from them that she was able to file a
case with the local police. The aforementioned justification was deemed adequate by the
court and left no room for dispute in the prosecution’s case.

Therefore, the FIR will have more credibility if it is made before the informant has a chance
to embellish. However, excessive or unreasonable delay in filing the FIR invariably raises
suspicion, which puts the court on alert to search for the potential motivation and
explanation and examine its impact on the credibility of the prosecution version, if any.

Evidentiary value of an FIR

Under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, it may be used to support an
informant witness. But it can’t be used to refute or undermine the testimony of other
witnesses.

Under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 it may be used to refute an
informant witness.

According to Section 155(3) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the defence may utilize the
FIR to challenge the credibility of the complainant.

To use it as proof of the informant’s actions in accordance with Section 8.

However, apart from the uses under Sections 145 and 157 where the accused is
examined as a witness, the FIR could be used against the suspect when the information
was provided by him as proof of his conduct (Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872)
or as an admission (Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872), provided it is a non-
confessional statement.
 However, a single accused’s FIR cannot be used to disprove another accused or contradict
any other testimony.

If any portion of the accused’s statement represents a confession, the law of severability
cannot be applied to exclude that portion of the statement from consideration as
evidence.

An FIR filed by the accused cannot be used against him to prove his intent to commit the
offence , among other things.

According to Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, if the informant passes away and
the FIR includes a statement about the reason for his death or the events leading up to
it, it may be used as substantial evidence to show the reason for his passing.

The claim that the accused was unjustly accused is to be dismissed when the FIR is
promptly filed, reliable, and backed by evidence.

The FIR may also turn into important evidence in the following situations:

During the dying declaration, when a person was testifying about the circumstances
surrounding his death. In these circumstances, Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 permits the admission of the FIR.

If the Station House Officer claims that he was present when the accused was harming
him, which resulted in the injuries occuring.

When the person who wrote or read the FIR is unable to recollect the relevant details but
is confident that the FIR accurately portrayed those details at the time of writing or
reading it.

Rights of person who has lodged the FIR

The informant is entitled to receive a copy of the FIR as soon as it is filed [Section
154(2)].

Following the receipt of the FIR, the officer in charge of the police station is required
under Section 157(2) to advise the informant that he will not be conducting an
investigation if he determines that there are insufficient grounds for doing so.

The officer must provide his report to the magistrate when the inquiry is over. At this
point, he must advise the informant of the actions he took [Section 173(2)(ii)], which
includes giving the informant a copy of the report submitted in accordance with Section
173(2)(i).

The Supreme Court has also held that if the Magistrate, after studying the Police Report
according to Section 173(2)(i), is not disposed to take cognizance of the offence and
issue procedure, or where there is enough evidence to proceed against some of the
suspects named in the FIR:
 Give the informant notice, and

Give him a chance to speak out once the police report is being considered so that the
informant may make arguments as to why the magistrate should recognize the offence.

False FIR’s
A fraudulent FIR is one in which the information given is misleading and for which a penalty
has been imposed. Anyone who provides wrong information to a public official with the aim
to harm another person is subject to imprisonment for a term that may extend to 6 months,
a fine of up to 1000 rupees, or both under Section 182 of the IPC. Anyone who knows or
has cause to think that an offence has happened and spreads false information about the
offence is subject to a sentence of up to two years imprisonment or a fine, or both under
Section 203 of the IPC.

In addition, Section 211 states that anybody who brings criminal accusations against
someone with the aim to harm them or who accuses someone falsely even when they are
aware that there is no legal basis for doing so faces up to two years in jail, a fine, or both.
Or, if the case or false accusation carries a sentence of life imprisonment, death penalty, or
imprisonment of seven years or more, then the offender will be punished with up to seven
years in jail, a fine, or both.

On the other hand, Section 177 covers situations where a police officer gives incorrect
information that he is aware that it is untrue.

Second FIR in a case

According to the law, which was established in the case of Kari Chaudhry v. Sita Devi in
2002, there cannot be two FIRs filed against the same accused for the same offence.
However, if there are new accounts of the occurrence that led to two FIRs, then two FIRs
must be filed, and an inquiry into those FIRs can proceed.

However, the court determined in Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, (2004), that the code does
not prevent filing two FIRs for the same occurrence, and the police are not justified in
declining to file the second FIR. In this situation, the Magistrate has the authority to order
the police to look into the second FIR as well.

Zero FIR
Any police station, regardless of its scope of authority, may record a zero FIR. It is typically
employed for offence s like murder and rape, as well as other cognizable offences, or
offences for which police can act without first seeking a court’s permission. Before it is
handed to the relevant jurisdictional station, basic action and investigation are taken. It is
useful for offences that need to be addressed right away since it enables quicker action that
is not slowed down by bureaucratic procedure and takes into account whether the police
station whose jurisdiction the offence falls under is difficult to get to. Police officials who
disregard the registration of zero FIR may face disciplinary action as well as prosecution
under Section 166A of the IPC.

Guidelines regarding FIRs

In the recent case of Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India and Others (2016), the
Supreme Court set the following guidelines:

According to the statutes, the accused is allowed to get a copy of the FIR early in the
judicial process. This indicates that the FIR may be obtained by the accused before the
charge sheet is submitted.

On payment of a fee, an accused person may submit an application through a lawyer to

get a certified copy of the FIR. The report must always be delivered within 24 hours after
making such a payment.

The application for a certified copy must be presented by the accused to the relevant
court within two days if the FIR has been forwarded to the concerned magistrate or
special judge.

Within 24 hours of the FIR being recorded, copies of the FIR must be uploaded on the
police website or, in the absence of a police website, the state website. Sensitive case-
related FIRs need not be uploaded.

Anyone holding a position below that of Deputy Superintendent of Police or an equivalent

grade cannot decide whether to upload the FIR or not. When the District Magistrate
assumes a position, he has the authority to decide as well. Any such choice must be
reported to the appropriate magistrate.

The appropriate authority may decide what constitutes “sensitive” information.

The absence of the FIR does not, in and in itself, constitute a violation of Section 438.

A committee of three officers will be formed by the Superintendent of Police or

Commissioner to address the matter when a copy of the FIR is withheld on the grounds
that it is confidential. The complaint must be resolved within three days after receiving
the representation.

When it is decided that copies won’t be provided, the aggrieved person may file an
application to the appropriate court for a certified copy, which must be given within three
days.
Difference between Sections 154 and 155 CrPC
While Section 154 of the Code deals with information on cognizable offence s, Section
155 of the Code deals with information on non-cognizable offences.

A cognizable case requires the official who is in charge of the police station to file an FIR,
but a non-cognizable offence requires the police to send the information to the local
magistrate and file an FIR only after receiving his approval.

On the basis of the first information he receives and records, the police officer can launch
an inquiry into an alleged cognizable offence. However, this is not the situation for non-
cognizable offences. According to Section 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the police
officer must give the magistrate the information they have gathered before they may
begin an inquiry into an offence of a non-cognizable nature.

Difference between Section 154 and 161 CrPC

Information acquired following the start of the inquiry, which is covered by Sections 161–
162, must be differentiated from the FIR.

An eyewitness account that a police officer records as soon as they arrive at the scene of
the incident cannot be used as the basis for a police report. However, that would not
invalidate the eyewitness testimony, which will need to stand or fall on its own.

The complaint cannot be considered as an FIR because that would be a statement made
during an investigation and would be subject to Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. when the
investigating officer purposefully chose not to file the FIR after receiving information
about a cognizable offence and instead filed the complaint only after travelling to the
scene and after careful consideration, consultation, and discussion.

Difference between an FIR and a charge sheet

The first document filed is called an FIR which comes before the charge sheet. As soon as
an offence is committed, an FIR is filed. Once the inquiry is concluded, only then is a
charge sheet issued.

A victim, witness, or other individuals with knowledge of the offence may file an FIR with
a police officer, but the police officer creates the charge sheet, which is referred to as the
final report. Section 173 allows for such a report, and it is given to the court. The case is
officially started after the charge sheet is delivered to the court.

While an FIR contains the information provided concerning the conduct of an offence that
initiates the investigation process, a charge sheet provides the name of the individual
against whom the charges are being filed and set out the charges.

Difference between an FIR and a complaint

Section 2(d) of the CrPC defines a complaint as “…meaning any accusation submitted orally
or in writing to a Magistrate.” Although a complaint is a sort of FIR, the law has established
a few distinctions between the two, which are listed below;

A complaint may be filed for either a cognizable or non-cognizable offence, but an FIR
exclusively deals with cognizable offences.

A complaint is submitted to the Magistrate while an FIR is filed at a police station and
information is provided to a police officer.

For a complaint, there is no set format, although Section 154 of the CrPC specifies the
process for an FIR.

When filing an FIR, anybody who is a victim, a witness, or has information about the
offence may do so, with the exception of cases involving marriage or defamation.

However, in the situation of a complaint, the Magistrate instructs the investigation to

begin and will also order the police to file an FIR of the same case. In the case of an FIR,
as it only deals with cognizable offences, the police officer can begin an investigation
even before seeking permission from the magistrate.

Conclusion
The FIR is crucial in every criminal case since it is the opening stage of any criminal
prosecution. FIR is evidence that causes the start of criminal procedures, which leads to a
criminal’s conviction. A first information report, as its name implies, is the action taken in
the event of a offence , followed by an investigation, a court case, and the punishment of
the guilty. It serves as a record of the details of the victim’s account. The FIR serves as the
foundation for all subsequent actions taken by the police. As a result, it is the earliest and
first information of a cognizable offence that a police station officer has ever documented.
The FIR turns out to be the key piece of evidence upon which the prosecution’s case is
based. The state’s responsibility is to take cognizance, which gives the victim a remedy and
upholds justice in society.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s)

What happens once an FIR is filed?

The police are legally required to begin an investigation after an FIR has been filed. The
process of an investigation entails but is not limited to, gathering information, speaking to
witnesses, looking over the offence scene, taking notes, and doing forensic tests. The police
will make arrests if the culprits are identified.

When the investigation is over, the police will compile all the information into a “Challan,” or
charge sheet. The matter proceeds to court if it is decided that the charge sheet has
sufficient evidence.

The case may be closed after the police have presented their arguments in court if they
determine after the investigation that there is insufficient evidence to support a offence
having been committed. The person who filed the FIR must be notified by the police if they
decide to close the case.

Can the later version of information be considered an FIR?

Any later statement made during an inquiry, even if it is determined to be genuine, would
not be admitted as FIR since the FIR is the one on which the investigation was first initiated.
Therefore, the answer to the above question is “no.”

Can an FIR be quashed?

According to Section 482 of the CrPC, a court may dismiss an FIR for numerous reasons,
including when the charge sheet is not presented soon after the FIR is registered or if there
is convincing evidence that the FIR was filed as a counterclaim to another FIR. The Supreme
Court issued the following instructions in the case Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai
Bhimshinhbhai Karmur and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (2017) regarding the quashing
of an FIR:

The inherent powers of the court are preserved under Section 282, which does not
provide the High Courts with any additional authority.

Even if the matter is compoundable, there is still the option to quash it.

The facts and circumstances of the case will determine whether or not an FIR should be
quashed on the grounds that it is compoundable.

The facts and circumstances of the case will determine whether or not an FIR should be
quashed on the grounds that it is compoundable.

The nature of the offence must be considered when using the Section 482 power when a
claim is made that the issue has already been resolved.

When it comes to quashing, cases that include a predominately civil dispute component
differ from other cases.

Cases that result from primarily civil, financial, or other comparable transactions may be
dismissed under Section 482. However, it is also important to consider how an offence or
economic fraud affects the economy, and judges are free to sustain a report on such
grounds.
References
https://blog.ipleaders.in/fir-bedrock-criminal-trial/

https://blog.ipleaders.in/first-information-report-everything-important-you-should-know-
about/#Object

http://iiir.co.in/ijiir/vol1issue3/IJIIR-01-03-05.pdf

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7018bbd4-5cf0-46d2-9097-
ef972ce56329

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/everyday-explainers/fir-cognizable-offence-
ipc-explained-7780266/

Durg Das Basu: Criminal Procedure Code (in 2 volumes), 4 th Edition, 2010

R.V. Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure

3-Day Bootcamp Free Online (Live only) on

Building an international career in TECHNOLOGY LAW

More than 65000 participants from 85 countries have attended our bootcamps so far

6th October, 7th October, 9th October, 2023 7 - 10 p.m. (IST)

Bootcamp starting in
0
Days
3
HRS
35
MIN
30
SEC

Mr.Abhyuday Agarwal COO & Co-Founder, LawSikho

Dr.Harsh Jain Co-Founder, LawSikho

Register now
Name

Your Name
Email

Your Email
Country Code
Select your country Select your country
Select your country
+91 - IN (India)
+376 - AD (Andorra)
+971 - AE (United Arab Emirates)
+93 - AF (Afghanistan)
+1268 - AG (Antigua And Barbuda)
+1264 - AI (Anguilla)
+355 - AL (Albania)
+374 - AM (Armenia)
+599 - AN (Netherlands Antilles)
+244 - AO (Angola)
+672 - AQ (Antarctica)
+54 - AR (Argentina)
+1684 - AS (American Samoa)
+43 - AT (Austria)
+61 - AU (Australia)
+297 - AW (Aruba)
+994 - AZ (Azerbaijan)
+387 - BA (Bosnia And Herzegovina)
+1246 - BB (Barbados)
+880 - BD (Bangladesh)
+32 - BE (Belgium)
+226 - BF (Burkina Faso)
+359 - BG (Bulgaria)
+973 - BH (Bahrain)
+257 - BI (Burundi)
+229 - BJ (Benin)
+590 - BL (Saint Barthelemy)
+1441 - BM (Bermuda)
+673 - BN (Brunei Darussalam)
+591 - BO (Bolivia)
+55 - BR (Brazil)
+1242 - BS (Bahamas)
+975 - BT (Bhutan)
+267 - BW (Botswana)
+375 - BY (Belarus)
+501 - BZ (Belize)
+1 - CA (Canada)
+61 - CC (Cocos (keeling) Islands)
+243 - CD (Congo, The Democratic Republic Of The)
+236 - CF (Central African Republic)
+242 - CG (Congo)
+41 - CH (Switzerland)
+225 - CI (Cote D Ivoire)
+682 - CK (Cook Islands)
+56 - CL (Chile)
+237 - CM (Cameroon)
+86 - CN (China)
+57 - CO (Colombia)
+506 - CR (Costa Rica)
+53 - CU (Cuba)
+238 - CV (Cape Verde)
+61 - CX (Christmas Island)
+357 - CY (Cyprus)
+420 - CZ (Czech Republic)
+49 - DE (Germany)
+253 - DJ (Djibouti)
+45 - DK (Denmark)
+1767 - DM (Dominica)
+1809 - DO (Dominican Republic)
+213 - DZ (Algeria)
+593 - EC (Ecuador)
+372 - EE (Estonia)
+20 - EG (Egypt)
+291 - ER (Eritrea)
+34 - ES (Spain)
+251 - ET (Ethiopia)
+358 - FI (Finland)
+679 - FJ (Fiji)
+500 - FK (Falkland Islands (malvinas))
+691 - FM (Micronesia, Federated States Of)
+298 - FO (Faroe Islands)
+33 - FR (France)
+241 - GA (Gabon)
+44 - GB (United Kingdom)
+1473 - GD (Grenada)
+995 - GE (Georgia)
+233 - GH (Ghana)
+350 - GI (Gibraltar)
+299 - GL (Greenland)
+220 - GM (Gambia)
+224 - GN (Guinea)
+240 - GQ (Equatorial Guinea)
+30 - GR (Greece)
+502 - GT (Guatemala)
+1671 - GU (Guam)
+245 - GW (Guinea-bissau)
+592 - GY (Guyana)
+852 - HK (Hong Kong)
+504 - HN (Honduras)
+385 - HR (Croatia)
+509 - HT (Haiti)
+36 - HU (Hungary)
+62 - ID (Indonesia)
+353 - IE (Ireland)
+972 - IL (Israel)
+44 - IM (Isle Of Man)
+964 - IQ (Iraq)
+98 - IR (Iran, Islamic Republic Of)
+354 - IS (Iceland)
+39 - IT (Italy)
+1876 - JM (Jamaica)
+962 - JO (Jordan)
+81 - JP (Japan)
+254 - KE (Kenya)
+996 - KG (Kyrgyzstan)
+855 - KH (Cambodia)
+686 - KI (Kiribati)
+269 - KM (Comoros)
+1869 - KN (Saint Kitts And Nevis)
+850 - KP (Korea Democratic Peoples Republic Of)
+82 - KR (Korea Republic Of)
+965 - KW (Kuwait)
+1345 - KY (Cayman Islands)
+7 - KZ (Kazakstan)
+856 - LA (Lao Peoples Democratic Republic)
+961 - LB (Lebanon)
+1758 - LC (Saint Lucia)
+423 - LI (Liechtenstein)
+94 - LK (Sri Lanka)
+231 - LR (Liberia)
+266 - LS (Lesotho)
+370 - LT (Lithuania)
+352 - LU (Luxembourg)
+371 - LV (Latvia)
+218 - LY (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)
+212 - MA (Morocco)
+377 - MC (Monaco)
+373 - MD (Moldova, Republic Of)
+382 - ME (Montenegro)
+1599 - MF (Saint Martin)
+261 - MG (Madagascar)
+692 - MH (Marshall Islands)
+389 - MK (Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic Of)
+223 - ML (Mali)
+95 - MM (Myanmar)
+976 - MN (Mongolia)
+853 - MO (Macau)
+1670 - MP (Northern Mariana Islands)
+222 - MR (Mauritania)
+1664 - MS (Montserrat)
+356 - MT (Malta)
+230 - MU (Mauritius)
+960 - MV (Maldives)
+265 - MW (Malawi)
+52 - MX (Mexico)
+60 - MY (Malaysia)
+258 - MZ (Mozambique)
+264 - NA (Namibia)
+687 - NC (New Caledonia)
+227 - NE (Niger)
+234 - NG (Nigeria)
+505 - NI (Nicaragua)
+31 - NL (Netherlands)
+47 - NO (Norway)
+977 - NP (Nepal)
+674 - NR (Nauru)
+683 - NU (Niue)
+64 - NZ (New Zealand)
+968 - OM (Oman)
+507 - PA (Panama)
+51 - PE (Peru)
+689 - PF (French Polynesia)
+675 - PG (Papua New Guinea)
+63 - PH (Philippines)
+92 - PK (Pakistan)
+48 - PL (Poland)
+508 - PM (Saint Pierre And Miquelon)
+870 - PN (Pitcairn)
+1 - PR (Puerto Rico)
+351 - PT (Portugal)
+680 - PW (Palau)
+595 - PY (Paraguay)
+974 - QA (Qatar)
+40 - RO (Romania)
+381 - RS (Serbia)
+7 - RU (Russian Federation)
+250 - RW (Rwanda)
+966 - SA (Saudi Arabia)
+677 - SB (Solomon Islands)
+248 - SC (Seychelles)
+249 - SD (Sudan)
+46 - SE (Sweden)
+65 - SG (Singapore)
+290 - SH (Saint Helena)
+386 - SI (Slovenia)
+421 - SK (Slovakia)
+232 - SL (Sierra Leone)
+378 - SM (San Marino)
+221 - SN (Senegal)
+252 - SO (Somalia)
+597 - SR (Suriname)
+239 - ST (Sao Tome And Principe)
+503 - SV (El Salvador)
+963 - SY (Syrian Arab Republic)
+268 - SZ (Swaziland)
+1649 - TC (Turks And Caicos Islands)
+235 - TD (Chad)
+228 - TG (Togo)
+66 - TH (Thailand)
+992 - TJ (Tajikistan)
+690 - TK (Tokelau)
+670 - TL (Timor-leste)
 +993 - TM (Turkmenistan)
+216 - TN (Tunisia)
+676 - TO (Tonga)
+90 - TR (Turkey)
+1868 - TT (Trinidad And Tobago)
+688 - TV (Tuvalu)
+886 - TW (Taiwan, Province Of China)
+255 - TZ (Tanzania, United Republic Of)
+380 - UA (Ukraine)
+256 - UG (Uganda)
+1 - US (United States)
+598 - UY (Uruguay)
+998 - UZ (Uzbekistan)
+39 - VA (Holy See (vatican City State))
+1784 - VC (Saint Vincent And The Grenadines)
+58 - VE (Venezuela)
+1284 - VG (Virgin Islands, British)
+1340 - VI (Virgin Islands, U.s.)
+84 - VN (Viet Nam)
+678 - VU (Vanuatu)
+681 - WF (Wallis And Futuna)
+685 - WS (Samoa)
+381 - XK (Kosovo)
+967 - YE (Yemen)
+262 - YT (Mayotte)
+27 - ZA (South Africa)
+260 - ZM (Zambia)
+263 - ZW (Zimbabwe)
No results

Phone

Your Phone
Select Your Profession
--Select --
I want to know more about the lawsikho courses
Yes
No
Save my seat

Mr.Abhyuday Agarwal COO, LawSikho

Dr.Harsh Jain Co-Founder, LawSikho