First Information Report
Submitted To:
Adv. Harmeet Singh
Submitted By:
Ashita Sahay - A3256118099
Tanya Sachdeva - A3256118100
Afreen Khan- A3256118123
LLB- B
Introduction
A FIR (First Information Report) is the earliest form and the first information of a
cognizable offence recorded by an officer-in-charge of a police station. It contains the
basic knowledge of the crime committed, place of commission, time of commission,
who was the victim, etc. The information given to the Police Officer for registration of
a case must be authentic and bona fide. It should be traceable to an individual who
should be responsible for imparting information and not be gossip. It may or may not
be hearsay but the person who reports of the said hearsay should take responsibility for
it and mention the source of information. FIR should not be result of an irresponsible
rumour.
The definition for the First Information Report has been provided in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the virtue of Sec. 154, which lay down that:
“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”.
In another case, the Court held that:
“After all registration of FIR involves only the process of entering the substance of the
information relating to the Commission of a cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer
in charge…as indicated in Sec. 154 of the Code”.
Filing of F.I.R – Who can file a F.I.R?
FIRs can be registered by a victim, a witness or someone else with knowledge of the
crime. As per the laws laid down under Sec. 154 of the Cr.P.C., the complainant can
give information about the offence either in written or orally.
By the SHO on his own knowledge or information even when a cognizable offence is
committed in view of an officer in charge, he can register a case.
The police are obliged to read the FIR back to the complainant in case it is conversed
to them orally to prevent the possibility of any differences in the oral and the written
versions.
F.I.R on Telephone
Cryptic and ambiguous telephone message which do not clearly specify a cognizable
offence cannot be treated as FIR.
But where there is proper information about the commission of a cognizable offence
and is reduced in writing by police officer then it can be treated as FIR.
Further it is the duty of the complainant to report to the police station in person in case
he had given the information on a telephone.
In a case wherein though the police officer went to the scene hearing rumours but recorded a
statement at the police station, it was held that in circumstances of the case that statement could
be accepted as FIR. The police are required to give a copy of the FIR to the complainant free
of charge.
Filing of F.I.R - When can a F.I.R be filed?
FIR is filed only for cognizable offences (those offences in which police does not
require any warrant to arrest). According to it, the police have the right to arrest the
accused person and investigate into the matter.
If an offence is not cognizable, the FIR is not filed in that case, the action is not possible
without the intervention of the court.
A FIR should be filed in the police station of the concerned area in whose jurisdiction
the offence took place.
Refusal to Lodge F.I.R by the Police
The police may refuse to lodge a first information report. This can be both legal and
illegal. In cases where they don’t have jurisdiction or is not in their legal capacity to
take cognizance or the offence is of non-cognizable nature, it will be held legal.
When a police officer refuses to register the FIR on the ground that it discloses a non-
cognizable offence, he must inform the informant and direct him to file a complaint to
the magistrate.
In case 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.
Evidentiary Value of F.I.R
The police can make three different kinds of statements:
- Statement is one which can be recorded as a FIR
- Statement is one which can be recorded by the police during the investigation
- Statement is any kind of statement which would not fall under any of the two
categories mentioned above.
The first information report is not considered a substantive piece of evidence in the
court of law because it is not given in a trial, given in the absence of oath, and is not
scrutinized by cross-examination.
But the relative importance of a first information report is far greater than any other
statement recorded by police during the course of investigation. It is the foremost
information the police get about commission of an offence and thus it can be used to
corroborate the story put forward by the informant or to contradict his version of facts
in case he is summoned as a witness in the case by court.
In cases where the informant is the accused himself, the first information lodged by him
cannot be used as an evidence against him because it is embodied in the basic structure
of our constitution that a person cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself.
It was held in Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre vs. State of Maharashtra, that it is fairly
well settled that first information report is not a substantive piece of evidence and it can be
used only to discredit the testimony of the maker thereof and it cannot be utilised for
contradicting or discrediting the testimony of other witnesses.
Confessional Statement
Where a person named in the FIR is to be summoned, the FIR can be taken into
consideration if the charge sheet has not been prepared as it is a very important evidence
at that stage.
If the FIR is a confessional one, it can be admissible. A confession is received in
evidence on the presumption that no person will voluntarily make a statement which is
against his or her interest, unless it be true.
In case of a confession by the accused, the Court must look into two tests:
- whether the confession is perfectly voluntary
- if so, whether it is true and trustworthy.
Satisfaction of the first test is sine qua non for its admissibility in evidence and if the
circumstances of the case throw any doubt on its voluntary nature the confession must
always be rejected.
If the confession is shown to be made in consequence of inducement, threat or promise,
it is inadmissible in evidence as it will lack the important element of voluntary action
on the part of accused and may be a result of undue influence, coercion, threat,
blackmailing etc.
The Court must examine the evidence available; the contents of the statement so made
and then apply to them the test of probability.
If the court finds that the material statement in the confession is inconsistent with the
evidence of eyewitness, it must be held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the
confession is true, and it must be put aside.
Delay in Lodging an F.I.R.
As per the law, the first information report is to be registered as soon as possible so that
no time is wasted, and the culprit is caught timely and no danger is present to others.
But sometimes, there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R. It may be due to the ignorance or
actions of the police or mistake by the informant himself.
If there is a delay on the part of police, they must provide substantial grounds for such
delay and no vague basis of delay would be sufficient in the eyes of law. The police
would not be liable under Indian criminal law if the delay was inevitable and upon
reasonable grounds.
Further, such different contexts of delay in lodging first information report has different
legal consequences. Though the law itself has not prescribed any time for lodging
F.I.R., it is an accepted rule that it should be filed promptly.
If a delay is caused, explanation for the delay should be given in the F.I.R.
In Bathula Nagamalleswara Rao & Ors. vs. State Rep. By Public Prosecutor the Apex
Court held that:
“Delay in lodging of FIR, if justifiably explained, will not fatal. An undue delay in lodging a
First Information Report is always looked with a certain amount of suspicion and should as far
as possible be avoided”.
Delay in F.I.R. can be under following three categories:
Delay by an informant in lodging F.I.R.
Delay in recording the F.I.R. by the officer in charge of the police station.
Delay in dispatching the F.I.R. to the magistrate.
Delay by Informant in Lodging an F.I.R
The court might look into various minor detains while deciding upon delay
caused in lodging F.I.R., such as distance between the nearest police station and
the place of commission of crime, time of the commission of crime, whether the
informant has any conveyance when he approached the police, type of crime,
societal and financial status of the aggrieved party, area they belong to, etc.
The Court, in the case of Pooran Yadav vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, held that the
distance of six kilometres between the village and the police station cannot be ignored and the
delay of approximately 1 hour caused in lodging F.I.R. is the result of this distance, and hence
the F.I.R. was held genuine.
The law demands a reasonable explanation for the delay caused in registering
the F.I.R., whether it was on the part of the informant or the part of the police.
In a rape case, where the F.I.R was lodged 10 days after the commission of crime, it
was explained that the reason was that honour of the family of prosecutrix was involved, and
thus, members of the family took time to decide whether or not is would be feasible to lodge a
first information report in the matter, the Court accepted this explanation as a justified ground
for the delay.
Delay in Recording the F.I.R. by the Officer in Charge of the Police Station
In some cases, the police choses to first visit the scene of the crime to ascertain
an idea about the incident and afterwards records the F.I.R. on the statement of
witness’s present. This might amount to be wrongful on the part of police as in
case of a cognizable offence, the police must register the complaint first and
then it has power to investigate the case.
This amounts to inordinate delay and the first information report is likely to be
quashed on the ground of inordinate delay. The Court has held that F.I.R
quashed due to inordinate delay in investigation not to be interfered with.
In the matter of Tara Singh and others vs. The State of Punjab, the court gave an
important view on the law regarding delay in recording F.I.R. in the following words:
“The delay in giving the FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case.
Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, one cannot expect these villagers to rush to the
police station immediately after the occurrence. Human nature as it is, the kith and kin who
have witnessed the occurrence cannot be expected to act mechanically with all the promptitude
in giving the report to the police. At times being grief-stricken because of the calamity it may
not immediately occur to them that they should give a report. After all, it is but natural in these
circumstances for them to take some time to go the police station for giving the report. Of
course, in cases arising out of acute factions, there is a tendency to implicate persons belonging
to the opposite faction falsely. In order to avert the danger of convicting such innocent persons
the Courts should be cautious to scrutinize the evidence of such interested witnesses with
greater care and caution”
If the delay is unexplained and some blatant reasons are at the base of the excuse, then
such a delay could prove fatal for the prosecution case. However, the delay alone is not
sufficient to prove fatal to the prosecution. This rule of law has been upheld by Courts
in many cases.
In Ramdas & Ors vs. State of Maharashtra, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “mere
delay in lodging FIR not by itself necessary fatal to prosecution case”.
Similarly, recently, Bombay High Court, in a rape case, held that delay in lodging the first
information report (FIR) by a rape survivor cannot be a ground for acquittal of the
accused. Further, the delay alone in itself cannot be a ground for suspicion that the F.I.R is not
credible, just as the promptness is not sufficient reason to believe that it is perfectly authentic.
In Kesar Singh vs. State of Haryana the Apex court observed that delay of 6 days in
lodging FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case. In this case injuries were inflicted on the
deceased and death occurred after six days, deceased remained in the hospital for treatment,
matter was not reported to Police by doctors.
Delay in Dispatching the F.I.R. to the Magistrate
Sometimes, the first information report reaches the Magistrate late due to certain
administrative actions as they are time taking and out of the control of both informant and
police. If such a delay, on the part of the officer in charge, can be explained, then the reliability
of F.I.R. would automatically increase.
False F.I.R.
Irrespective of country, region or society, a false complaint is a phenomenon that cannot
be ignored. These false F.I.R. can be lodged by an informant or by police to implicate
a person in a case.
Under Indian criminal law, lodging a false F.I.R. against someone is a punishable
offence under Section 182 and under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code.
Sec. 182 prescribes a punishment for six months and fine in case any person
gives false information to a public servant, on the basis of which the public
servant takes certain action which he might not have taken if he had known the
true state of facts.
As per Sec. 211, any person who institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal
proceedings against a person to cause him injury, knowing that the complaint
and allegations are false, is liable to face imprisonment for a period which may
extend to two years.
Further, if the charge alleged discloses an offence which is punishable by death, or a
minimum imprisonment for seven years, is punishable with imprisonment for a
maximum period of 7 years.
It is the duty of the authorities to initiate proceedings under section182 IPC if they conclude
that the complaint given is a false one.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court, in the matter of Harbhajan Singh Bajwa vs.
Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala & Anr., has given a wide explanation of Sec. 182
and it was held that:
“Whenever any information is given to the authorities and when the said authority found that
the averments made in the complaint were false, it is for the said authority to initiate action
under Section 182 I.P.C. The offence under Section 182 I.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment
for a period of six months or with fine or with both.”.
Madras High Court is of a view the principal object of the FIR from the point of view
of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of view of the
investigating authorities is to promptly record it so as to reduce the doubt created by the delay,
if any, in registration regarding embellishment and possibility of false implication of the
accused.
But, as held in the case of Rajinder Singh Katoch vs. Chandigarh Administration & Ors.:
“Although the officer in charge of a police station is legally bound to register a first information
report in terms of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the allegations made by
them gives rise to an offence which can be investigated without obtaining any permission from
the Magistrate concerned; the same by itself, however, does not take away the right of the
competent officer to make a preliminary enquiry, in a given case, in order to find out as to
whether the first information sought to be lodged had any substance or not”.
The Court has discussed the important elements of Sec. 182 while delivering a verdict in the
matter of Santosh Bakshi vs. State of Punjab & Ors. As follows:
A piece of information was given by a person to a public servant.
The information was given by a person who knows or believes such statement to be
false.
