Information in cognizable cases

An information given under sub-section (1) of section 154 CrPC is commonly

known as first information report (FIR) though this term is not used in the Criminal
Procedure Code (in short CrPC).
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 CrPC, as the case may be, and forwarding of a
police report under section 173 CrPC. It is quite possible and it happens not
infrequently that more information than one are given to a police officer-in-charge
of a police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one
cognizable offences. In such a case he need not enter every one of them in the
station house diary and this is implied in section 154 CrPC. Apart from a vague
information by a phone call, the information first entered in the station house diary,
kept for this purpose, by a police officer-in-charge of a police station is the first
information report- FIR postulated by section 154 CrPC. All other information
made orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the
cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the first information
report and entered in the station house diary by the police officer or such other
cognizable offences as may come to his notice during the investigation, will be
statements falling under section 162 CrPC. No such information/statement can
properly be treated as an FIR and entered in the station house diary again, as it
would in effect be a second FIR and the same cannot be in conformity with the
scheme of CrPc

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. Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom
 an offence under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354A, section
354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, section 376A, section 376B,
section 376C, 376D, section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code is
alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be
recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer; Provided
further that—

1. in the event that the person against whom an offence under section 354, section
354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, section 376A,
section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376E or section 509 of the
Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been committed or attempted, is temporarily
or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be
recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such
offence or at a convenient place of such person’s choice, in the presence of an
interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be;
2. the recording of such information shall be video graphed;
3. the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial
Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (5A) of section 164 as soon as possible
4. A copy of the information as recorded under Sub-Section (1) shall be given
forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
5. 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.
Purpose and Object of FIR
The purpose of registration of FIR is manifold that is to say
(1) To reduce the substance of information disclosing commission of a cognizable
offence, if given orally, into writing.
(2) If given in writing to have it signed by the complainant.
(3) To maintain record of receipt of information as regards commission of
cognizable offences.
(4) To initiate investigation on receipt of information as regards commission of
cognizable offence.
(5) To inform Magistrate forthwith of the factum of the information received.

Evidentiary Value of FIR.

FIR is not a piece of substantive evidence. It can be used only for limited purposes,
like corroborating under section 157 of the Evidence Act or contradicting (cross-
examination under section 145 of Evidence Act) the maker thereof, or to show that
the implication of the accused was not an after-thought. It can also be used under
section 8 and section 11 of the Evidence Act. Obviously, the FIR cannot be used
for the purposes of corroborating or contradicting or discrediting any witness other
than the one lodging the FIR. It cannot be used for corroborating the statement of a
third party. If the FIR is of a confessional nature it cannot be proved against the
accused-informant, because according to section 25 of the Evidence Act, no
confession made to a police officer can be proved as against a person accused of
any offence. But it might become relevant under section 8 of the Evidence Act.
What you will do when police officer refuse to register FIR
When a police officer-in-charge of a police station or any other police officer,
acting under the directions of the officer-in-charge of police station refuses to
register information, any person aggrieved by such refusal may send in writing and
by post, the substance of such information disclosing a cognizable offence, to the
Superintendent of Police under section 154(3) or to the Magistrate concerned under
section 156(3) of the CrPC.
 Punishment for giving false information.
Punishment for giving false information to the police is dealt with by sections 182,
203 & 211 of IPC. Even if such information is not reduced to writing under
Section 154(1) of CrPC, the person giving the false information may nevertheless
be punished for preferring a false charge under section 211 of IPC. A police officer
refusing to enter in the diary a report made to him about the commission of an
offence, and instead making an entry totally different from the information given,
would be guilty 0under Sections 166A and 177 of IPC.

 Provision under section 154 Cr.PC is only directory

 State Represented by Inspector of Police, Chennai vs. N.S. Gnaneswaran, Criminal

Appeal No. 456 of 2008, Decided on 9th January, 2013
The question was whether giving the copy of the FIR to the informant is mandatory
and if not what is the prejudice caused to the respondent/accused as the informant
has not raised the grievance of non-supply of the copy of the FIR nor it has been
the case of the respondent that he sought the copy of the FIR and was not given.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“The issue also requires to be examined on the touchstone of doctrine of prejudice.
Thus, unless in a given situation, the aggrieved makes out a case of prejudice or
injustice, some infraction of law would not vitiate the order/enqury/result. In
judging a question of prejudice, the court must act with a broad vision and look to
the substance and not to technicalities”. [Para 7]

“In the instant case, learned counsel for the respondent is not able to show any
prejudice caused to him for not supplying the copy of the FIR to the
informant”.[Para 9]

“..the provisions of Section 154(2) are merely directory and not mandatory as it
prescribes only a duty to give the copy of the FIR”. [Para 17]
 “..non compliance of the mandatory provisions under Section 154, Cr.P.C. if the
case is registered on the basis of the information received suo-motu after
specifying that the information reveals prima facie cognizable offence against the
respondent herein and found that the matter is fit for investigation to be taken by
the appellant herein, in not following the provisions of Section 154 does not vitiate
the registration of FIR and further proceedings in the matter of registration”. [Para
23]

The Court also noted following case law:

Dahari & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 10 SCC 256, this Court considered
the prejudice in a trial where charges had not properly been taken care of. In the
said case the trial commenced against five accused under Section 302 read with
Section 149 IPC and they stood convicted by the Sessions Court. The High Court
though acquitted 3 persons but for the remaining accused conviction was
maintained under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. This Court held that in
such a factual situation, the High Court could most certainly has convicted the
appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and as no prejudice has been
shown to have been caused to them, the question of interference could not arise.

Other case laws noted by the Court:

Jankinath Sarangi v. State of Orissa, (1969) 3 SCC 392;

State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal & Anr., AIR 1998 SC 3038;
State of A.P. v. Thakkidiram Reddy & Ors., (1998) 6 SCC 554;
Debotosh Pal Choudhury v. Punjab National Bank & Ors., (2002) 8 SCC 68