This article has been written by Prateek Pal, pursuing a Certificate Course in Advanced Criminal Litigation & Trial Advocacy from LawSikho.

This article has been edited and published by Shashwat Kaushik.

Introduction

One of the classifications of law divides law into substantive and procedural law. While substantive law defines the rights and liabilities, procedural law lays down the procedure to enforce the said rights and liabilities. So, while substantive criminal laws like the Indian Penal Code, 1860, define the offences and specify the punishments, the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) lays down the procedure to be followed in a criminal case. A criminal case under Cr.P.C. is of two types-cognizable and non-cognizable. The terms ‘cognizable offence’ as well as ‘cognizable case’ have been defined under Section 2(c) of Cr.P.C. as an offence for which and as a case in which a police officer may arrest without warrant in accordance with the First Schedule of Cr.P.C. Similarly, ‘non-cognizable offence’ as well as ‘non-cognizable case’ have been defined under Section 2(l) of Cr.P.C. as an offence for which and as a case in which a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant. The First Schedule classifies various offences as cognizable and non-cognizable. Although there are other ways to initiate proceedings in the case of a cognizable offence, like filing a complaint with the magistrate or on the basis of information received from another person, the most common way is to file a First Information Report (FIR) with the officer in charge of the police station. Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973, deals with FIR. This section, dealing with the concept of FIR, also marks the beginning of the investigation, which is the most crucial task that the police perform in criminal proceedings. Investigation is the process of collecting evidence carried out by the police, which begins with the filing of the FIR and ends with the submission of the police report or charge sheet to the concerned magistrate. The term ‘FIR’ is not defined in the Code, but it is simply the first oral or written information of the commission of a cognizable offence given to the officer in charge of a police station that is formally recorded by him.

Download Now

What does Section 154 Cr.P.C

Section 154 of the Code prescribes the procedure, form, and manner in which information regarding the commission of any cognizable offence is to be recorded by the officer in charge of the police station. The section is intended to ensure the making of an accurate record of the information to be given to the police. According to the section:

  1. The information can be given either orally or in writing, but if it is given orally, the same has to be reduced to writing by the officer in charge himself or under his direction.
  2. If the information is given in writing, or if reduced to writing, the writing shall be signed by the informant.
  3. The information reduced to writing must be read over to the informant to ensure that it has been accurately recorded.
  4. Every such piece of information, whether given in writing or reduced, shall be signed by the person giving it.
  5. The substance of the information shall be entered into a book kept by such an officer in the form prescribed by the state government. The book is called the station diary or general diary.
  6. In case of information by a woman against whom offences (mainly sexual offences) under certain sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are alleged to be committed or attempted, it shall be recorded by a woman police officer or any woman officer. It is also provided that the statements of women, either physically or mentally disabled, against whom any sexual offence has been alleged to have been committed shall be recorded with the help of an interpreter or special educator, and such recording shall be videographed.
  7. Copy of the information as recorded shall be given forthwith to the informant.
  8. If the officer in charge of the police station refuses to record the information, any person aggrieved by such refusal may send, in writing and by post, the substance of such information to the Superintendent of Police (SP) concerned. If SP is satisfied that such information discloses the commission of cognizable offence, he shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him.

Contents of an FIR

The contents of an FIR are:

  • FIR contains the name and address of the police station in which it has been lodged.
  • Date and time of registration of the FIR
  • Date, time, and place of occurrence of the offence.
  • Details of complainant/informant.
  • Details of known/suspected/unknown accused.
  • Contents of the information.
  • Action taken thereupon.

 Who can lodge FIR

Anyone who knows about the commission of a cognizable offence can file a FIR. It is not necessary that only the victim of the crime file an FIR. A police officer who comes to know about a cognizable offence can file an FIR himself/herself.

Where to file an FIR

Preferably, the FIR should be filed at the police station having jurisdiction over the place where the offence is committed. However, in order to cater to emergent situations, a practice of filing Zero No. FIR has evolved, which can be filed in any police station irrespective of its lack of jurisdiction, and the same is transferred to the jurisdictional police station after taking the necessary steps or an initial investigation. Usually, this process is followed in case of heinous offences like murder, rape, etc.

Refusal to register FIR

An officer in charge is duty bound to register an FIR in case of a cognisable offence. This has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgements. Some of the judgements are discussed below:

State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (1992)

In this case, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the officer in charge of the police station is duty bound to lodge the FIR in a cognizable case. This is for the purpose of preventing any foul play by the police officer.

It was further held that unlike Section 41(1)(a) of the unamended Cr. P. C. [now Section 41(1)(b)], in Section 154 of the Code, the word “credible” information or “reasonable” complaint has not been used. The implication seems to be that in the case of lodging an FIR, it is not expected from the officer in charge that he shall first examine the credibility or reasonableness of the information; rather, he is per se duty bound to lodge the FIR.

It was further held that if a police officer does not record the FIR, then the remedy available is that a superior officer can be contacted, an application under Section 156(3) can be filed, and a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. can be filed before the magistrate, or else an application under Section 482 of the Code can be filed before the concerned High Court.

Ramesh Kumari vs. NCT Of Delhi (2006)

In this case, it was held that before lodging the FIR, a preliminary investigation can be conducted if it is not clear whether the offence is cognizable or not. But if the offence is found to be cognizable, the PO is duty bound to record the FIR. The court recognised that in certain situations, it may not be immediately apparent whether an offence is cognizable or non-cognizable. In such cases, the police are permitted to conduct a preliminary investigation to ascertain the nature of the offence. This preliminary investigation should be limited in scope and should not delve into the merits of the case or collect evidence. Its primary purpose is to determine whether the offence falls within the category of cognizable offences, as defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

If, during the preliminary investigation, it is determined that the offence is indeed cognizable, the police are duty-bound to register an FIR without any further delay. The court emphasised that the registration of an FIR is not a mere formality but a fundamental right of the victim or complainant. It serves as a crucial step in initiating the criminal justice process and ensuring that the investigation is conducted in a fair and transparent manner.

The court also clarified that the preliminary investigation should be conducted in a time-bound manner and should not be used as a pretext to delay or avoid registering an FIR. The police are required to complete the inquiry promptly and expeditiously, taking into account the urgency and seriousness of the matter.

Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. & Ors. (2013)

In this case, this is a landmark judgement delivered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. It was categorically held in this judgement that for a cognizable offence, the FIR should be compulsorily registered, and the fact that the matter is insufficient and no investigation is required can be examined only after the lodging of the FIR. It reiterated that a preliminary investigation can be conducted only if the information does not clearly disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. However, the court also held that in certain cases, even though it is a cognizable offence, a preliminary inquiry can be conducted by the police officer before lodging the FIR. These cases are as follows:

  • Matrimonial disputes;
  • Commercial offences;
  • Corruption cases;
  • Medical negligence cases; and
  • Cases where there has been a delay of 3 months or more in the lodging of the FIR.

The preliminary investigation has to be completed within a period of 15 days.

So, it is clear from the aforementioned judgements that the officer in charge of the police station is duty bound to record a FIR in case of a cognizable offence, barring the aforesaid exceptions where a preliminary inquiry can be conducted. However, if the police officer still refuses to lodge an FIR in a cognizable case, then the informant has the following remedies:

  • He can send the substance of the information in writing to the concerned Superintendent of Police as per Section 154(3).
  • He can make an application to a magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the matter under Section 156(3).
  • He can make a complaint to the concerned magistrate under Section 200 of the Code.
  • He can also make an application to the concerned High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Delay in filing the FIR

Whenever the court finds that there was a delay in filing the FIR,. The court will become suspicious about the FIR and also about the informant if the delay is not sufficiently explained. The court will be suspicious about the testimony of that informant and may seek an explanation regarding the delay. However, mere delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case.

In the case of Amar Singh vs. Balwinder Singh (2003), there is no set deadline for submitting a police report. A simple delay in filing an FIR cannot serve as a defence alone for destroying the credibility of the whole prosecution case. The court must examine the delay and seek an explanation for it. If the wait is justified to the court’s satisfaction, it cannot be used against the prosecution’s case.

In the State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh (1996), it was held that in rape cases, the delay in filing the FIR is self-explained as in these matters, honour/reputation of the family is usually involved, and delay is possible owing to the social stigma attached to these incidents. The Court emphasised that the delay in filing an FIR should not be held against the victim and that the courts should take a sensitive and understanding approach in such cases. The Court ruled that in rape cases, the delay in filing an FIR is self-explained and should not be used to discredit the victim’s testimony or to weaken the prosecution’s case. This landmark decision has had a significant impact on the way that rape cases are handled by the criminal justice system in India, and it has helped to ensure that victims of sexual assault are treated with compassion and respect.

Rights of the informant

  • Information reduced to writing is to be read over to the informant.
  • A copy of the FIR is to be furnished to the informant as soon as it is recorded, free of charge, as per Section 154(2) of Cr.P.C.
  • In case an officer in charge of the police station does not intend to investigate the matter due to insufficient grounds, the informant is entitled to be notified of the same by such officer as per Section 157(2) of Cr.P.C.
  • As per Section 173(2)(ii) of Cr.P.C., the informant is entitled to know the action taken by the officer in charge of the police station upon the filing of the police report on completion of the investigation.
  • In case a closure report is filed upon completion of the investigation, the informant is entitled to file a protest petition.

Right of the accused to have a copy of the FIR

Ordinarily, the accused is entitled to get a copy of the FIR after the chargesheet has been filed under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. However, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Youth Bar Association of India vs. Union of India (2016) that the accused is entitled to get a copy of the FIR at an earlier stage than prescribed under Section 207, commencing after its registration. It was further held that the FIRs be uploaded to the police or government website within 24 hours of the registration so that the accused can download them and can approach the court for remedies. However, the aforesaid judgement creates an exception to the aforesaid requirement for FIRs pertaining to offences that are ‘sensitive in nature’, including but not limited to sexual offences, offences under POCSO, or terror offences.

Duties of informant

  1. The informant is duty bound to sign the information once it has been recorded and read over to the accused, as per Section 154(1) of the Cr.P.C. If he refuses to sign the same, he can be prosecuted under Section 180 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
  2. Similarly, the informant shall not try to falsely implicate a person, or else he can be prosecuted under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
  3. He must not give false information regarding the offence, or else he can be punished under Section 203 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Cryptic information

In the case Surajit Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal (2012), the Supreme Court held that cryptic information is vague and obscure information. The intention of the informant in such a case is not to initiate the proceedings, but merely to inform the concerned police officer about the commission of the offence. He does not intend to sign the FIR or give details of the crime, but rather only to inform the police and leave it to them. In such a case, since the formalities of an FIR cannot be conducted, the cryptic information cannot be converted into an FIR.

Multiple FIRs

In T.T. Anthony vs. State of Kerala (2001), the Supreme Court held that where, for the same case, two or more FIRs are lodged in the same police station or some other police station, then there will be an unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, the police officer taking the subsequent FIR may not investigate the case. However, if he actually investigates the subsequent case, that would result in unnecessary harassment for the accused. The accused can file an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for the quashing of the FIR. The court will quash the subsequent FIR, and the first FIR will be sustained.

However, in cases of cross FIRs the court, instead of quashing the FIRS, will club the two cases together.

Evidentiary value of FIR

  • FIR can be used to corroborate the testimony of the informant, who appears as a witness at the trial stage under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 187.
  • It can be used to cross examine and contradict the informant at the trial stage under Sections 145 and 146 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
  • It can also be used to impeach the credit of the informant under Section 155(3) of the Evidence Act, 1872
  • It can be used to refresh memory by the informant/witness under Sections 159 and 160 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
  • Further, if the FIR can be relevant fact under Section 6 of the Evidence Act, 1872, if it is filed almost immediately after the offence has been committed, then the filing of the FIR could be considered to have taken place in the same transaction in which the offence took place.
  • FIR can also be considered relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act as a statement accompanying conduct subsequent to the fact in issue and influenced by the same.
  • FIR can also be relevant if it contains some self-harming admissions as per Section 21 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
  • In case of a confessional FIR, or FIR filed by the accused himself, the part of the FIR which leads to discovery of a fact is relevant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872
  • If the FIR is lodged by the victim of the offence who dies subsequent thereto, the FIR becomes relevant under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, 1872 as a dying declaration.

Conclusion

The registration of the FIR brings the criminal process into motion and also makes the documentation of initial facts so that the changes are not brought about in the FIR. This will avoid any foul play by the police. It is the first step to justice for the victim. It promotes the rule of law as the criminal matter is brought on record. It acts as the bedrock of the criminal case and must always be carefully recorded. The police officers must not refuse to file FIRs in the case of cognizable offences, as it can only be after it has been registered that it can be ascertained as to whether the case is genuine or not. I would suggest that the necessary dos and don’ts as to FIR be affixed to every police station to bring about more transparency and accountability and to protect the rights of both the informant and the accused.

References

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here