FIR

 It is not defined in the code . It only lays down the manner in which one has to file FIR
that is the procedure to file an FIR But a report recorded under section 154 of the code is
known as “first information report”
 It must relate to a cognizable offense -reduced to writing……AS GIVENIN SEC 154
 It is given to the police officer . it is first in point of time. But the mere fact that such a
report is first in point of time does not by itself clothe it with the character of FIR. In the
case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs V.V. Panduranga Rao. the cryptic telephonic message
received by police was not held to constitute first information report but the detailed
statement that was recorded by police after going to the place of occurrence was treated
as FIR, in spite of the fact that the telephonic message was first in point of time .

OBJECTS OF FIR

 It is on the basis of this report that investigation of the offense commences

under this section . It is intimation about the occurrence of the event.
 The principal object 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 obtain information about the alleged criminal activities so as
to be able to take suitable steps to trace and bring to book the guilty
 Delay in lodging first information report creates doubt about prosecution
story and prompt lodging on the other hand strengthens prosecution
story.Prompt lodging off the report is insisted because :
 delay results in embellishments/fabrications and the report gets
bereft of the advantage of the spontaneity
 there is also danger of introduction of a colored version, exaggerated
account or connoted story as a result of deliberation and
consultation

In case of delay it becomes necessary for the prosecution to satisfactorily

explain the delay . Even along delay can be condoned where the
informant has no motive for implicating the accused.

It has to be decided by scrutinizing explanation offered in light of facts

and circumstances of case.


  OBJECT OF SECTION 154:

 The section has threefold object namely

 to inform the magistrate of the district and District Superintendent of police

who are responsible for the peace and safety of the district, of the offences
reported at the police station
 to safeguard the accused against subsequent variations or additions
 to make known to the judicial officers before whom the case is ultimately
tried what are the facts given out immediately after the occurrence and on
what materials the investigation commenced

 Necessity of conducting a preliminary enquiry before recording a F.I.R

In the landmark judgment of Lalita Kumari v/s Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1 wherein the Apex Court while
giving an extended meaning to the provisions of the Cr.PC categorically held:

 It is mandatory u/s 154 of the Code to register a F.I.R without conducting a

preliminary enquiry, if a person reports about the commission of a
cognizable offence.

 The question of preliminary enquiry only arises when it is not clear that the
offence reported is cognizable or not. In that case, inquiry should be
concluded within a week and F.I.R must be registered if sufficient material
about commission of a cognizable offence is available. A copy of the F.I.R
should be provided to the informant at the earliest. If the report concludes
otherwise and suggests closing of complaint, reasons for doing so shall be
recorded in writing.

 A non-exhaustive list of cases allowing preliminary enquiry was laid down,

it included Family & Matrimonial Disputes, Commercial offences, Medical
negligence, Corruption and cases where there has been a delay of more
than 3 months in initiating a criminal prosecution.

 Denial of registering case:

 Officer in charge of a police station is legally/ duty bound to register first

information report in terms of section 154 disclosing a cognizable offence, if the
allegations made give rise to an offence which can be investigated without
obtaining any prior information from the magistrate concerned.
 Under section 166 A of IPC, whereby failure to record information in certain cases
has been made punishable that is section 326 A ,376AB, 376B ,376C, 376D,376 DA,
376DB , E, 509 . He shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than six months but which may extend to 2 years and also liable
for fine
  State of Haryana vs Ch. Bhajan Lal : it was held in the instant case that when any
information closing disclosing a cognizable offense is laid before the officer in
charge of a police station ,he has no option but to register the case on the basis
thereof.

 RIGHT OF COMPETENT OFFICER:

 The duty of police officer to neccisarily register an FIR does not take away
the right of the competent officer to make an preliminary inquiry in a given
case in order to find out as to whether the first information report sought
to be lost has any substance or not
 The reliability of information is Not a condition precedent for registration
 Before registration of the report an officer should be satisfied .in other
words if the facts of a case are such which requires some enquiry for the
satisfaction about the charges or allegations made in the fir or police
officer may have entertained a reasonable belief or doubt then he may
make some enquiry.
 EXCEPTIONS: There cannot be a registration of any report against a high
court judge or Chief Justice of the high court or the Supreme Court judge
without the consultation of the honourable Chief Justice of India, in case
there is an allegation against honourable Chief Justice of India the decision
has to be taken by the honourable President of India. There cannot be any
FIR even against the civil judge or Munsif without permission of the chief
justice of the concerned court
 The information given already to the officer in charge of police station is
to be reduced to writing by him or under his direction A police officer
cannot insist upon an illiterate person to give an FIR in writing by
somebody else

 OPTIONS IF O-C DENIES REGISTRATION OF FIR:

Chronology of remedies that are available to the person aggrieved:

 Section 154(3) Cr.PC allows the informant to write a detailed

account of the information to the Superintendent of Police.
Subsequent to which if the Superintendent is satisfied that the
information suggests commission of a cognizable offence, he
shall investigate the matter or himself or direct any subordinate
police officer to do so.

 The informant may approach the Magistrate's Court having

jurisdiction and file a complaint u/s 156(3) of the Criminal Code,
upon receipt of which the Magistrate exercising his powers u/s
190 Cr.PC shall direct registration of F.I.R followed by a direction
of appropriate investigation in the matter.
  In case of inaction of police officers in registering a person aggrieved can adopt
modalities contained in section 190 (cognizance of offences by magistrates ) read with
section 200 (Examination of complaint) CrPC by laying complaint before the magistrate
having jurisdiction to take cognizance of offence

 CONTENT OF FIR :
The Supreme Court observed that it is well settled at the first information report is not
an encyclopaedia which must disclose all the facts and details to the offence reported an
informant may lodge a report about the commission of an offence though he may not
know the name of the victim or his assailant ,he may not know how the occurrence took
place . a first information need not necessarily be an eyewitness so as to be able to
disclose in great details all the aspects of the offence committed what is significant is that
the information given must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the
information so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission
of a cognizable offence he must be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been
committed
 Section 154 requires only the substance of information received to be mentioned
in the daily diary (as prescribed by state govt. ) and the same cannot be said to be
the repository of every factum.
 It need not be or contain an exhaustive account of the incident
 KIRENDER SARKAR AND OTHERS. V. STATE OF ASSAM : Here it was held that first
information report is not supposed to be encyclopaedia of the entire event and
cannot contain the minutest details of the event when essentially material facts
are disclosed in the first information report that is sufficient . It is not an
encyclopedia which is expected to contain all details of prosecutions case it may be
sufficient if brought facts of prosecution case alone appear.
In Latesh vs State of Maharashtra, it was retirement and the court further held that
it is settled law that affi and need not be an encyclopaedia of the incident laying
out miniscule details and instances of how the crime was committed
 It is neither customary not necessary to mention every minute detail in the report
that occurred either prior to or subsequent to an offense such as the overt acts
attributed to each of the accused which had to be narrated and proved at the trial
 But omission of important facts affecting the probabilities of the case are relevant
under section 11 of the evidence act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case
 But well no satisfactory explanation is punished for omission to the name of the
accused in the first information report the court made out the veracity of the
prosecution. the inference will vary from case to case
 The Supreme Court held in State of Madhya Pradesh vs Dhar Khale that there is no
requirement of mentioning the name of all witnesses in the first information
report.
 It was held in Shyamal Ghosh vs State of West Bengal , that failure to mention
name of one accused is not by itself sufficient to give benefit of doubt to accused
when prosecution has established its case. It was also said that discrepancies are
the omissions have to be material ones then only they may amount to contradiction
options serious consequence.
 It was held in State of Uttar Pradesh vs Krishna Master and others , Omission to
state motive of crime in affair is not an omission of an important fact
  It has been laid down that in considering the effect of some omission in the F I R
the probable physical and mental condition of the informant cannot be ignored
 Mere omission to mention an incidental fact cannot have the effect of nullifying in
otherwise prompt and impeccable report

 Where to lodge an FIR

 Ideally / General rule is that ordinary the information is to be given to the police
station having territorial jurisdiction where the offense has been committed.
 But a police constable cannot refuse to record the complaint on the ground that
the said police station had no territorial jurisdiction over the place of crime. In
State of AP v. Punati Ramube ,it was held by the Supreme Court that refusing to
record the complainant was a dereliction of duty (Doing so shall be considered a
dereliction in his duty and will attract provisions under 166A IPC) on the part of the
constable because any lack of jurisdiction could not have prevented the constable
from recording information about the cognizable offense and forwarding the same
to the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which the crime was said
to have been committed.
 In case where one is not able to report it at the jurisdictional police station , he
may report it at any other police station and the officer in charge shall record the
information in the form of “Zero FIR” . He will record the information ,register it
with a ‘0’ serial number and immediately transfer it to the concerned jurisdiction
for necessary action.

 WHERE FIR CAN BE USED?

 it can only be used to corroborate the statement of the maker under section 157 of the
Evidence act
 it can be used to contradict under section 145 of the Evidence act
 It can be used for the purpose of contradicting maker of report . Where the accused
himself gives the first information is admissible against him as evidence of his conduct
under section 8 of the Evidence act
 If the information is non-confessional ,it is admissible against the accused as an admission
under section 21 of the evidence act and is relevant.
 It can be used to corroborate or impeach the testimony of the person lodging it under
section 145 ,157 and 158 of the evidence act it can also be used under section 32(1) and
section 8(J) and (K) of the evidence act
 It can be used to discredit the testimony of the maker of the report, but even if he gives
entirely different version, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out
 It can only be used as a previous statement for purposes of either corroborating its matter
or for contradiction and in such a case previous statement cannot be used unless attention
of witness has first been drawn to those parts by which it is proposed to contradict the
witness
 WHERE FIR CANNOT BE USED?

 It is not a substantive piece of evidence

 it cannot used to Corroborate or contradict or discredit other witnesses
 it cannot be used as evidence against the maker at the trial if he himself becomes an
accused under section 25 of the Evidence Act
 It cannot be used for contradictory testimony of eyewitnesses
 It can by number means be utilized for contradicting or discretiding other witness

 VALUABLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE BUT NOT SUBSTAINTIVE

It has been laid down that the value to be attached to the first
information report depends upon facts and circumstances of each case
 Exceptions : where the first information report is also dying declaration
it can be used as a substantive or primary evidence as a dyeing
declaration. Where first information report can be tendered in
evidence under any provision contained in chapter 2 of the Evidence
act such as a dying declaration or as a part of informants conduct
under section 8 it can be used as a substantive evidence.
 It is a settled position of law that F.I.R is not a substantive piece of evidence.
It can only be used as corroborative evidence or to check the
creditworthiness of the informant or the witness. The corroborative value of
F.I.R substantially declines if there's an unexplained delay in filing of F.I.R,
for the simple reason that a delay maybe interpreted as an afterthought and
it puts the Courts on guard to look for possibilities of an ill motive or
concoction of facts. The position with regard to delay was clearly explained
in Arpen Joseph v/s State of Kerala (1973) 3 SCC 114.
 However, F.I.R is considered a substantial piece of evidence where the
informant does not survive till the conclusion of the trial and the F.I.R is
treated as a dying declaration, if it fulfils the criteria as a valid declaration
that can be regarded as an admissible piece of evidence.
 In Ram Ratan vs State of Uttar Pradesh , the first information report was
held to be admissible in evidence as a corroborative piece of evidence.
 Where the person lodging the fired at the Supreme Court held at the
contents of the FIR could be used for the purpose of corroborating or
contradicting the person if he had been examined but not as
substantive piece of evidence.

 ANTE TIMED FIR

 It is denote that fir was not promptly reg. but after a considerable
amount of time of the incident
 ADMISSIBILITY ON STATEMENT OF ACUSSED
 The inculpatory parts of the statements that are hit by section 25 of
the Evidence act are inadmissible in evidence
  In Brajendra Singh vs State of Maharashtra, It was held at the first
information report recorded on statement of accused is not admissible
as evidence
 The Supreme Court has held that the first information report recorded
on the statement of the accused is not admissible as confession

 DELAY IN FILING FIR:

 A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka
and Sanjay Karol, recently affirmed the conviction of 9 accused persons of
the crime committed by them back in 1988.
 the Court cited an extensive thread of precedents to demonstrate the
principles of law in respect of delay in registration of FIR as evolved over
time.
 These included the case of Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala, (1973) 3 SCC 114,
wherein it had been observed that no time duration, in the abstract could be
fixed as the ‘reasonable time’ to give information to the police and
therefore, the same is a question to be determined as per facts and
circumstances of each case.
 In this context, the Court opined that in such a situation, delay in filing of
the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the prosecution more so in
view of the injuries sustained by him; the place of occurrence being a
remote village area and that the version of events was dictated to the police
by this witness only upon their reaching his place of shelter.

Section 154. Information in cognizable cases.Previous Next

(1) 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
1

under section 326A, section 326B, 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 (45 of
1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall
be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer:
 Voluntary causing grievous heart by using of acid
 voluntary throwing or attempting to throw acid
  assault or criminal force to women with intent to outrage her
modesty
 sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment
 assault or use of criminal force to women with intent to disrobe
 voyeurism
 stalking
 Punishment for rape
 punishment for causing death or resulting in persistent vegetative
state of victim
 sexual intercourse by husband upon his wife during separation
 sexual intercourse by person in authority
 Gangrape
 punishment for repeat offenders word gesture act intended to
insult the modesty of women

Provided further that--

(a) 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,
2

section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section
376DB], section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) 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;

(b) the recording of such information shall be video graphed;

(c) 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.]
;

(b) the recording of such information shall be videographed;

(c) 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.]
 The requirement of law is that the first information report should
reach the magistrate without any undue delay where the
explanation for the delay was that the code was closed because of
an intervening holiday the court rejected it and said that court
holidays could not be an excuse the explanation was neither
convincing nor acceptable
 In the matter of receipt of first information report by Magistrate ,
one of the external cheques against anti-dating or anti- timing of
an FIR is the time of its dispatch to a magistrate or its receipt by
the magistrate.
 if the court is convinced on the prosecution’s version of
truthfulness and trustworthiness of the witness the absence of an
explanation may not be regarded as detrimental to the prosecution
case provided the prosecution has to explain about the delay in the
dispatch of the copy of the FIR

(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1)shall be given

forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
 It is merely a directory provision and not mandatory as it prescribes only a duty to give
the copy of the FIR
 (COPY TO ACCUSED ) :In Youth Bar Association of India vs Union of India the
Supreme Court issued following directions in matters relating to FIR:

(3) 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.

Note : criminal law( amendment ) act , 2013 and 2018