Section 154, crpc 1973

Importance and purpose of FIR

Vikesh Verghese Vs State represented by the Inspector of

Police (L&O) 2020 SC

In this case the importance of section 154 was discussed as it corresponds to the
definition given in the code of criminal procedure. It was observed that 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 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
CrPC, as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 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."
Subjective nature of the Delay caused in the registration of
FIR

Parminder Kaur @ P.P. Kaur @ Soni Vs State of Punjab 2020

SC

In this case the importance of delay in filing of FIR was discussed. According to the
facts, the father of the victim was an eye witness to the sexual offence that his
daughter was subjected to, yet there was a five days delay in the registration of FIR.
It was held that even though a delay in registering an FIR is usually justified due to
the nature of sexual offences, but in this particular case the delay takes a new tangent
as father of victim is an eyewitness to a part of occurrence.

It is difficult to appreciate that a father would await a second incident to happen

before moving law into motion. Their lordships considered that abrupt or sweeping
assumptions concerning delays in registration of FIR for sexual offences, send a
problematic signal to society and create opportunities for abuse by miscreants. And
that’s why the delay should be understood as a question of fact which may change
along the lines of the circumstances. In simple words, facts of each individual case
and behaviour of parties involved, ought to be analysed by courts before reaching a
conclusion on reason and effect of delay in registration of FIR. It was held that “In
facts of present case, neither is Section 366A by itself a sexual offence in strict sense
nor do inactions of prosecutrix or her father inspire confidence on genuineness of
prosecution story”. It was also noted that no steps were taken to avail the medical
examination of victim, nor was Panchayat or any social forum approached for any
form of redress till occurrence of second alleged incident. The delay in the FIR was
held to be not justified
Evidentiary value of FIR

Prabhu Dayal Vs  The State of Rajasthan 2018 SC

In this case the evidentiary value of FIR was debated upon. It was argued whether an
unexpected delay might affect the evidentiary value of FIR. It was observed that by
their lordships that FIR is in fact 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. Thus it can be concluded that the FIR can’t be used as piece of a
significant evidence and hence need not to an exhaustive account of the incident. It is
not an encyclopaedia of the case but merely a narration of those who witnessed it
either directly or indirectly. The delay might affect the probative value and
admissibility of other statements or evidences but not the FIR itself. The court
clarified in detail why an FIR shouldn’t be treated as a substantive piece of evidence.
the points are summarised as follows:-

 Because the statements in the FIR are not made on oath.

 Because the statements in the FIR are not made during a trial or at the time of
proceedings.
 Because the statements recorded in FIR cannot be cross-examined in the
Court.
  Because the statements in FIR constitute the statements recorded by the
police which are not admissible as evidence in court.

Can an FIR be treated as a dying declaration

Dayaram vs state of Madhya Pradesh 2019 SC

The deceased filed an FIR, about the threat from the appellants “that he would be
beaten to death by their lathis”. Later on his way back from the station he was
attacked by the accused. While the deceased was in the hospital his son lodged
another FIR about the attack. The deceased succumbed to his injuries. The question
that arose was whether the first FIR could be treated as a dying declaration. The
court observed that “There was no inconsistency in statement made by deceased
in F.I.R lodged by deceased before the attack and the FIR made by the son after the
attack. Substratum of both FIRs remained consistent to the effect that both
Appellants had assaulted deceased with lathis on his head, hands and legs when he
was returning from Police Station. Dying declaration was corroborated by
medical evidence that Appellants had inflicted grievous injuries on deceased which
caused his death. The court also observed that Motive for crime was established by
prosecution from dying declaration of deceased and deposition of son of deceased.
The statements made by both the parties before and after the incident even though
occurred in different transactions complete the chain of circumstantial evidence.
F.I.R lodged by deceased was prompt. The court held that As per Section 32(1)
of Evidence Act, the F.I.R lodged by the deceased should be treated as a Dying
Declaration. F.I.R lodged by deceased clearly states names of both Appellants, as
being assailants and gives clear details of incident. Two FIRs made by deceased are
consistent with each other and ocular evidence is corroborated by medical evidence .

Recording of FIR, A Mandate or a Discretion

Refusal to record FIR in sexual offences

In Re : Assessment of The Criminal Justice System In

Response To Sexual Offences 2019 SC

In this case the importance of a prompt FIR was discussed in cases of sexual
offences. It was observed that the intensity of sexual offences do not affect the victim
alone but the entire family and the entire class of females. It creates a sense of
insecurity which leaves a scar in the mind of females of all ages. It is necessary and
mandatory for the authority to record the FIR at the instance of the party or by
themselves whenever the crime is reported. Recording of FIR as the scheme of the
code itself suggests is not a discretion but a mandate. It is important since the
criminal law is set into motion by registration of the FIR. The procedure of recording
a FIR in case of such offences was also laid down clearly by their lordships, it was
declared that Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. provides about the information in cognizable
cases and in effect registration of First Information Reports. The first Proviso to the
sub-Section (1) of Section 154 inserted by the Amendment Act of 2013 and
subsequently amended by the Amendment Act of 2018, provides for registration of
First Information Report in cases of rape and sexual offences by a woman police
officer or any woman officer. It is further provided that if the victim is temporarily or
permanently mentally or physically disabled, the first 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 persons choice, in the presence of a special educator or an
interpreter and the recording of such information may be video graphed. It is also
provided that the police officer shall get the statement of such person recorded by a
Judicial Magistrate under Section 164, as soon as possible.

Refusal to record FIR in other cases

M. SUBRAMANIAM AND ANOTHER VS S. JANAKI AND

ANOTHER 2020 SC

In this case, the question whether it is mandatory to record a FIR was discussed. The
alternatives of FIR were also discussed in the same. It was observed that the scheme
of the code itself makes the recording of FIR compulsory, however in any event
where a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR
under Section154 CrPC, then he can approach the Superintendent of Police
under Section 154(3) CrPC by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield
any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that
even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved
person to file an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the learned Magistrate
concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate,
the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper
investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no
proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision
monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.

Bikash Ranjan Rout vs State through the Secretary

(Home), Government of NCT of Delhi 2019 SC

In this case the question whether the mandate of section 154 applies to those
information also which does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence was
raised. The apex court in this case beautifully explained that “The condition that is
sine qua non for recording an FIR under Section 154 of the Code is that there must be
information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence. If any
information disclosing a cognizable offence is led before an officer in charge of the
police station satisfying the requirement of Section 154(1), the said police officer has
no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is
to say, to register a case on the basis of such information. The provision
of Section 154 of the Code is mandatory and the officer concerned is duty-bound to
register the case on the basis of information disclosing a cognizable offence. Thus,
the plain words of Section 154(1) of the Code have to be given their literal meaning.
“Shall” 

The court also observed that A police officer can foreclose an FIR before an
investigation under Section 157 of the Code, if it appears to him that there is no
sufficient ground to investigate the same. The section itself states that a police officer
can start investigation when he has “reason to suspect the commission of an offence”.
Therefore, the requirements of launching an investigation under Section 157 of the
Code are higher than the requirement under Section 154 of the Code. The police
officer can also, in a given case, investigate the matter and then file a final report
under Section 173 of the Code seeking closure of the matter. Therefore, the police is
not liable to launch an investigation in every FIR which is mandatorily registered on
receiving information relating to commission of a cognizable offence. 

Refusal to abide by the procedure given in section

154

STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENNAI

VS N.S. GNANESWARAN 2013 SC.
In this case it was held that if the mandatory procedure under Section 154, Cr.P.C. is
not followed it will be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In view of
the undisputed facts that the mandatory procedure under Section 154, Cr.P.C. is not
followed by the appellant herein thereby the High Court of Madras has rightly
assigned the reason and held that non-compliance of the mandatory provisions
of Section 154 (1) & (2) of Cr.P.C. has vitiated the proceedings and accordingly
quashed the same in exercise of inherent powers of the High Court
under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 

Confessional statements made in the FIR

SOMASUNDARAM @ SOMU vs THE STATE REP. BY THE

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE 2020 SC

 The case discussed the evidentiary value of confessional statements made during an
FIR. It is a settled law the confessions made to the police are not admissible as
evidence.

For instance, (i) ‘A’ is accused of the murder of ‘B’. He goes to the police and informs
that he murdered ‘B’ by stabbing him and throwing his body into the river. (ii) ‘A’
murders ‘B’ and apprehends that he will be caught. To keep himself out of suspicion,
‘A’ informs the police that he saw an unknown person killing ‘B’. The first instance is
where the FIR given by accused ‘A’ is confessional in nature and the second one is
non-confessional. If a statement is confessional in nature, it cannot be used in the
court as evidence under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The landmark
case in this instance is Aghnoo Nagesia v. the State of Bihar 1966 SC. The
question was once again discussed in detail by the apex court that whether the
confessional statements made during an FIR would be admissible as against the
maker. The following was laid down:
A confessional first information report cannot be used against the maker when he be
an accused and necessarily cannot be used against a co-accused. The same was held
by the same court in Nisar Ali v. State of U.P. AIR 1957 S C 366. The court
also would like to bring on record the ruling in Faddi v. State of M.P. AIR
1964 S C 1850 where it was held that if the accused himself gives the first
information, the fact of his giving the information is admissible against him as
evidence of his conduct under S. 8 of the Evidence Act. If the information is non-
confessional, it is admissible against the accused as an admission under S. 21 of the
Evidence Act and is relevant. But a confessional first information report by the
accused to a police officer cannot be used against him in view of S. 25 of the Evidence
Act.

FIR given by the accused!

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR vs

MOHD. PARVEZ ABDUL KAYUUM ETC. 2019 SC

The case discusses the admissibility of the FIR registered by the accused himself.
It was held that “FIR given by accused is categorically inadmissible as evidence”.
the admissibility of the confessional and non-confessional statements in a FIR as
explained in the case is summarised as follows:-

 If the FIR given by the accused is non-confessional in nature, it is

admissible in the court of law. However, unless specifically admitted, the
FIR of the accused cannot be used against him.
  If the FIR made by the accused is confessional in nature and has a tendency
to expose the accused to criminal charges, it shall be inadmissible as per
section 25 of the Indian evidence act. However the part of the statement
which can be used for further investigation and discovery of relevant facts,
is admissible as a discovery statement under section 27 of the Indian
evidence act.

 If the FIR consists of parts one of which is confessional while others non-
confessional, it is entirely inadmissible in court. However, if the no-
confessional part is absolutely exclusive of the confessional part, it can be a
relevant fact under Section 18 of the Evidence Act and if admitted by the
maker under Section 21, is admissible as evidence.

When more than one FIRs are registered.

Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs Union of India & Ors. 2020

SC

The case discussed the question whether there can be more than on FIR for the same
cognizable offence. It was held the apex court that “there can be no second FIR where
information concerns same cognizable offence alleged in first FIR or same
occurrence or incident which gives rise to one or more cognizable offences. It was
further observed by their lordships that Investigation covers within its ambit not just
alleged cognizable offence or the one registered in the FIR, but also any other
connected offences that may be found to have been committed. Once an FIR
postulated by provisions of Section 154 has been recorded, any information received
after commencement of investigation cannot form basis of a second FIR as doing so
would fail to comport with scheme of Cr.P.C.

The contention that needs notice is whether two or more FIRs relate to same incident
or relate to incidents which form part of same transactions can be registered one
after another. If Court were to conclude, subsequent FIRs are liable to be quashed
when the FIR relate to the same incident or different incidents forming part of the
same transaction. However, where subsequent FIR relates to different incidents or
crimes or is in form of a counter-claim, investigation may proceed in the subsequent
FIR as well. In present case, all FIRs or complaints which have been lodged in
diverse jurisdictions arise out of one and same incident. Broadcast is foundation of
allegation that offences have been committed under provisions of Sections 153, 153A,
153B, 295A, 298, 500, 504 and 506 of IPC. They are worded in identical terms.
Under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and
173 CrPC, only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a
cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 CrPC. Thus, there can be
no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of
every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same
occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of
information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable
offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in
charge of a police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence
reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed
in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more
reports as provided in Section 173 CrPC."
The court also observed that “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."

PRADEEP RAM  vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND &

ANR. 2019 SC

In this case it was held by the apex court that under the scheme of the provisions
of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC only the earliest or the first
information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the
requirements of Section 154 CrPC. Thus there can be no second FIR and
consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent
information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or
incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information
about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or
offences and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a
police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR
but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the
same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided
in Section 173 CrPC.” 

Every first information will not be treated as FIR

Bhagwan Jagannath Markad & Ors. Vs State of

Maharashtra 2016 SC
In the case, complaint was lodged through telephone, the information had loopholes
and did not fully disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The officer lodging
the complaint refused to register it as FIR. The question arose whether such refusal is
valid and can the telephonic conversation be considered as a. FIR. It was held by the
apex court that a telephonic conversation may be treated as a FIR if the ingredients
of section 154 are satisfied i.e., the information discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence. The information must also be clear and vivid enough for the
authority to conclude that there has been a cognizable offence committed. It is quite
possible and it happens not infrequently that more information's 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 or a cryptic telegram, 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.
To ensure that a criminal investigation is not proceeded on a frivolous complaint the
authority may conduct a preliminary enquiry. While referring to Section 154 Cr.P.C.,
the Court also observed that every cryptic information, even if not signed by the
person giving the information, cannot be treated as FIR. The information should
sufficiently disclose the nature of the offence and the manner in which the offence
was committed. The court following the principle laid down in Damodar v State of
Rajasthan 2003 SC, held that the following does not constitute a FIR:

1. A report or a statement recorded after the commencement of the investigation

(sections 162 and 163 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973).
2. Reports not recorded immediately but after questioning of witnesses.
3. Reports recorded after several days of developments.
4. Information not about occurrence of cognizable offence but only cryptic
message in the form of an appeal for immediate help.
5. Complaint to the Magistrate.
6. Information to beat house.
7. Information to the Magistrate or police officer on phone.
 8. Information received at police station prior to the lodging of an F.LR.

Importance of a Preliminary inquiry before a

FIR

THE STATE OF TELANGANA vs  SRI MANAGIPET @

MANGIPET SARVESHWAR REDDY 2019 SC

In the above case, it was argued whether there must be a preliminary enquiry before
lodging a FIR. It was held that “Scope and ambit of a preliminary inquiry being
necessary before lodging an FIR would depend upon facts of each case. There is no
set format or manner in which a preliminary inquiry is to be conducted. The
preliminary enquiry can be conducted with only one objective which is to ensure that
a criminal investigation process is not initiated on a frivolous and an untenable
complaint. Once the officer recording FIR is satisfied with such disclosure, he can
proceed against accused even without conducting any inquiry or by any other
manner on the basis of credible information received by him. It cannot be said that
FIR is liable to be quashed for reason that preliminary inquiry was not conducted.
Same can only be done if upon a reading of entirety of an FIR, no offence is disclosed.
Type of preliminary inquiry to be conducted will depend on facts and circumstances
of each case. There are no fixed parameters on which such inquiry can be said to be
conducted. Any formal and informal collection of information disclosing a cognizable
offence to satisfaction of person recording FIR is sufficient.
Union of India vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. 2019 SC

It was held in this case that an FIR has to be registered forthwith in case it relates to
the commission of the cognizable offence. There is no discretion on the Officer In
charge of the Police Station for embarking upon a preliminary inquiry before
registration of FIR. Preliminary inquiry can only be held in a case where it has to be
ascertained whether a cognizable offence has been committed or not. If the
information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence on the face of it, it is
mandatory to register the FIR under Section 154 of CrPC, and no preliminary inquiry
is permissible in such a situation.

Yashwant Sinha & Ors. Vs Central Bureau Of

Investigation Through its Director & Anr. 2019 SC

In this case it was argued whether a preliminary enquiry is compulsory for the
registration of an FIR. The apex court held that “the 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”.

It was also observed that 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. 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.
The court emphasizing on the important of registration of an FIR observed that the
police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering a complaint if a 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.

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.

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.

Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information
received in a police station, it was directed 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.”

Who can lodge a FIR

Dr. RAM LAKHAN SINGH vs STATE GOVERNMENT OF

UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY 2015 SC

The question as to who may file an FIR was raised in the case. It was held that “First
Information Report (FIR) can be filed by any person. He need not necessarily be the
victim or the injured or an eye-witness. First Information Report may be merely
hearsay and need not necessarily be given by the person who has first-hand
knowledge of the facts.”
Quashing of an FIR

Prithvi raj Chauhan vs union of Indian 2020 SC

The case revolved around whether the inherent powers of the high court under
section 482 criminal procedure code can be used to quash the FIR. It was held by the
apex court that “While it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined,
sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae or to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein power under Section 482 of the Code
for quashing of the FIR should be exercised, there are circumstances where the Court
may be justified in exercising such jurisdiction. Such circumstaces are, where the FIR
does not prima facie constitute any offence, does not disclose a cognizable offence
justifying investigation by the police; where the allegations are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; where
there is an expressed legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code; and
where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
Despite stating these grounds, the Court unambiguously uttered a note of caution to
the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very
sparingly and with circumspection and that too, in the rarest of rare cases; the Court
also warned that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the
complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary
jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice.
Can an FIR be treated as a dying decleration

Dayaram vs state of Madhya Pradesh 2019 SC

The deceased filed an FIR, about the threat from the appellants “that he would be
beaten to death by their lathis”. Later on his way back from the station he was
attacked by the accused. While the deceased was in the hospital his son lodged
another FIR about the attack. The deceased succumbed to his injuries. The question
that arose was whether the first FIR could be treated as a dying declaration. The
court observed that “There was no inconsistency in statement made by deceased
in F.I.R lodged by deceased before the attack and the FIR made by the son after the
attack. Substratum of both FIRs remained consistent to the effect that both
Appellants had assaulted deceased with lathis on his head, hands and legs when he
was returning from Police Station. Dying declaration was corroborated by
medical evidence that Appellants had inflicted grievous injuries on deceased which
caused his death. The court also observed that Motive for crime was established by
prosecution from dying declaration of deceased and deposition of son of deceased.
The statements made by both the parties before and after the incident even though
occurred in different transaction complete the chain of circumstantial evidence.
F.I.R lodged by deceased was prompt. The court held that As per Section 32(1)
of Evidence Act, the F.I.R lodged by the deceased should be treated as a Dying
Declaration. F.I.R lodged by deceased clearly states names of both Appellants, as
being assailants and gives clear details of incident. Two FIRs made by deceased are
consistent with each other and ocular evidence is corroborated by medical evidence .