FIRST INFORMATION Sec 154 of the CrPC

REPORT
 Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi (2007)
1. Refusal by the informant to sign the first information is an offence punishable
under section 180 of the Indian Penal Code. The absence of signatures on the first
information report by the informant, however, is not necessary to the extent that it
will vitiate and nullify such report. The first information is still admissible in
evidence.
2. In the case of Shyamlal v. State of UP (1953) the Court has categorically pointed
out that FIR fits the definition of Public document u/s 74 of the Evidence Act.
3. In the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors (2001)“Information given under
S. 154 of CrPC is commonly known as the First Information Report even though
the term is not used in the Code. It is the earliest and the first information of a
cognizable offence recorded by an officer in charge of a police station.
Continued..
1. Sec 154 does not require that the report must be given by a person who has
personal knowledge of the incident reported. The section speaks of information
relating to the commission of cognizable offence given to an officer in charge of
a police station. Hallu v. State of MP (1974).
2. If a telephonic message has been given where the informant can be ascertained
and the information is clearly understandable and is not cryptic in nature, then
the same can be reduced to writing as is required under S. 154 of CrPC even if
the information is not complete but it clearly indicates the commission of a
cognizable offence. Tohal Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1989)

Cognizable Offences have been defined u/s 2(c) of the C.P.C., 1973. This is the class
of offences in which the police has the power to make an arrest without a warrant.
Even though there is no defined pattern we can see that the offences which have
punishment of more than three years are classified as cognizable offences.
 Difference between FIR & complaint
In reference to Courts and their judicial process, the term “cognizance” merely means
“taking notice judicially”- Ajit Kumar Palit v. State of West Bengal (1963).
The main point of difference between a first information report and a police complaint
is that an FIR relates a cognizable offence whereas a police complaint can be filed for
both non-cognizable and cognizable class of offences.
According to s. 2(d) Cr.P.C., a complaint is the allegation of fact which constitute a
complaint.
Complaint and FIR are different in terms of offences they deal with, punishments, legal
consequences, evidentiary value, etc. further, a complaint is to be given to a magistrate
either by the way of spoken words or in writing, whereas the first information report is
lodged at the police station nearby the place of commission of crime.
 Procedure following a complaint
When a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence on the basis of a complaint, he
orders an investigation in the matter and can also direct the police to lodge an FIR if
he feels that the offence is of a serious nature. He is not empowered to take suo moto
cognizance on the complaint if he is satisfied that there is no grave offence requiring
an immediate course of action. He can act upon the complaint only if it reveals a
prima facie commission of an offence Moppamud Attulah v. Ram Sharan (1978).
-Magistrate can take cognizance of a complaint u/s 190 of CrPC and he can examine
the same according to the provisions from S. 200 to S. 203 where he examines the
witnesses and the facts of the case.
-if he finds that the complain is with merits then the case is deemed committed for
trial and the Magistrate issues process under S. 204.
-if the case is exclusively traible by the Court of session, then the same would be
committed under S. 209 to the Court of Session.
Continued..
If at the initial stages of investigation, it is found that the offence committed is of a
non-cognizable nature, then the report submitted after investigation cannot be treated
as a complaint within the scope of Sec. 2(d) or Sec. 190(1)(a) of the Cr. P.C.
 Refusal to file FIR
If the offence committed is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of a police station,
information should be recorded and forwarded to the appropriate police-station
having jurisdiction, otherwise refusing to record on this ground will amount to
dereliction of duty, this was held in the case of State of AP v. Punati Ramulu (1963).
-It is important to file an FIR also because it can be later on used as a piece of
evidence, however it has to be kept in mind that the contents of an FIR will not be
treated as a conclusive evidence but it would only be used for the purpose of
corroborating or contradicting the contents. Malkhan Singh v. State of UP (1995)
Even if the informant is contradicted and the FIR loses some credibility the other
witnesses are enough for conviction of the accused. Hence the value of FIR is not
that substantial- Dharamaram v. State of Maharashtra (1973)
Lalita Kumari v. State of UP (2014)
Kathiravan v. State (2007): the officer in charge of a police station cannot conduct an
enquiry to make a decision as to whether a case can be registered for being
investigated upon. These are exceptional cases and the exceptions cannot be treated
as a general rule.
 Remedies
Remedies available when the police refuses to file the FIR
1. can approach the commission of Police or the SP (with a written complaint-
cognizable-will investigate on his own- will direct a subordinate to file an FIR and
proceed.
2. File a complaint to the Judicial Magistrate/ Metropolitian Magistrate u/s 156(3)
r/w S. 190.
3. Writ of mandamus may be filed.