NMIMS SCHOOL OF LAW

PROJECT SUBMISSION ON CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - 2

TOPIC – FIRST INFORMATION REPORT (FIR)

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

PROF. SRIKANT AITHAL SAJAL SINGHAI (A054)

BBA.LLB (HONS)

2nd Year (Trim – 6)

1|Page
 INTEX

 CHAPTER – 1: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY………………..04

 CHAPTER – 2: INTRODUCTION……………………………...…05

 CHAPTER – 3: LEGAL ANALYSIS………………………….…...06

 CHAPTER – 4: ROLE OF JUDICIARY…………………………..18

 CHAPTER – 5: CONCLUSION…………………………………....25

BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………....26

2|Page
LIST OF CASES

Dr. Subramanian swamy v. Dr. Manmohansingh,

Lalita kumari (s) v. Govt. of u.p. & ors. (s)

Pandurang chandrakant mhatre v. State of Maharashtra

Machchi Singh v. State of Punjab

Tohal Singh v/s State of Rajasthan

State of Haryana v/s Bhajan Lal

RELEVANT SECTIONS OF STATUTES REFERRED:

Section 154 of code of criminal procedure

Section 156 of code of criminal procedure

Section 190 of code of criminal procedure

Article 21 of Indian constitution

3|Page
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

OBJECTIVE:

 To analyse and understand the different provision related to FIR given in code of criminal
procedure 1973.
 To understand the different case laws based on section 156 and section 190.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

 DhirajLal&Ratanlal, TheLaw of Evidence,(Nagpur : Wadhwa& Company), 2008

 D D Basu- Code of Criminal Procedure, 5th Edition 2014
 Ratanlal: Code of Criminal Procedure 21st Edition
 Singh Avtar, Priniciples of the Law of Evidence, (Allahabad : Central Law Publications),
2007
 K.N ChandrasekhranR.V. Kelkar's Lectures on Criminal Procedure Paperback – 31 Jan 2009

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

 Data are of two kinds – primary data and secondary data. Data is primary when it is collected
for the first time by the investigator himself to suit the purpose of his research. It is secondary
when some data collected by a person is used by another person to suit some other purpose.
 Here the researcher plans to use secondary data available in the form of commentaries by
jurists, books, articles and webpages to present a clearer understanding regarding written
statements

4|Page
 INTRODUCTION

An information given under sub-section (1) of section 154 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is
commonly known as first information report though this term is not used in the Criminal
Procedure Code (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. The FIR has to be registered at the earliest point of time after the incident. Any delay in
registration has to be adequately explained. Delay in registration may cause a suspicion as to
whether it was an afterthought or a concocted version. Ideally, the FIR should be registered in
the police station within whose geographical limits the crime took place. But in case of an
emergency, there is no bar on any other police station registering the FIR and then transferring
the investigation to the correct station. Also, it is not always necessary to go in person to register
the FIR. In an emergency, the police can register an FIR based on a phone call or e-mail. The
FIR should mention the date and time of the incident and the identity of the accused (if known)
in a precise manner. After it is registered, the complainant is entitled to a copy free of charge.
The Crime Number in the FIR is the reference for all future follow-ups. As for the police, once
the FIR is registered, they have to investigate the case, record statements of all witnesses, and
file a final report. If the police conclude that there is no basis for the complaint or no evidence
available to prosecute the case, further action is dropped. This has to be communicated to the
complainant. If there is enough evidence, the final charge sheet is submitted before Court and the
trial begins. If the police refuse to register an FIR, a written complaint can be sent to the
Superintendent of Police. A complaint may also be given directly to the Judicial Magistrate, who
can direct the police to investigate the case.

5|Page
 LEGAL ANALYSIS

Section 154 - Information in cognizable cases.1

(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.

(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub- section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of
cost, to the informant.

(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 subsection (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.

INGREDIENTS OF FIR

The word “information” means something in the nature of a complaint or accusation, or at least
information of crime, given with the object of putting the police in motion in order to investigate,
as distinguished from information obtained by the police when actively investigation a crime.
First Information report is not supposed to contain all detail of the incident. It, however, must
contain necessary ingredients of offence as it is the basis on which police start investigation. It is
sufficient if it indicates that an offence had been committed. Information received by the police
from the dead body room in the hospital where dead body of the deceased was brought for post-
mortem was not treated as FIR.2

The law is very clear and well settled that a report which disclose the commission of a
cognizable offence must be treated as the first information report under sec. 154, CrPC. It does
not matter whether the person lodging the report had witnessed the commission of the offence or
not, nor it is necessary that all details should be mentioned in the report about the manner of
1
Code of criminal procedure 1973
2
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal's, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 20th edition, Lexis Nexis

6|Page
occurrence, the participants in the crime, the time and the place of occurance etc. The
requirement of Sec. 154 CrPC is only this that the report must disclose the commission of a
cognizable offence and that is sufficient to set the investigation machinery into action.

A vague information about the commission of murder given to police, without disclosing as to
who was murdered or facts and circumstances leading to the commission of the murder was not
treated FIR. Where the content of the FIR was cryptic, and does not disclose the commission of
cognizable offence, it is no FIR. A mere information on telephone that a certain place an
incident in which several person had received injuries had taken place, being vague and not
disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence is not FIR .

Mere information to the police that the victim has been gang raped without disclosing any clue of
the accused person was not held FIR.

Entry in police station dairy first in point of time, but no particulars of the offence given, cannot
be treated FIR. It is not necessary that the FIR should disclose all the ingredients of a cognizable
offence. Even if a wrong section is mentioned in FIR that does not prevent the court from
framing appropriate charges. When the element of misrepresentation to the person who was
introduced to act on it is absent in the FIR. Court can interfere with the investigation.\

It is manifest that an FIR is not intended to be a very detailed document and is meant to give only
the substance of the allegation made and therefore, the absence of the mention of a lathi in FIR
would not put the prosecution case out of court. Mere information on the police about the
burning of the complainant’s shed without stating that how the shed caught fire and who had set
it on fire does not amount to first information report. FIR is not a chronicle of the exhaustive
details of the occurrence, nor it is a catalogue of everything including minor particular of the
event which took place.

A plain reading of Sec. 154 show that an information to be treated as First Information Report
must be one related to the commission of a cognizable offence. It further transpires that such
information must be given to an officer-in-charge of a police station. If the information given to
him orally, then it should be reduced into writing either by him or under his direction and be read
over to the informant. Lastly, it lays down that every such information whether given in writing
or reduced into writing shall be signed by the person giving it and the substance thereof shall be
entered in a book kept by such officer. Merely because some information is first in time, does not
qualify to be FIR without looking into its contents.

FIR lodged with police cannot be accepted as an encyclopedia to find everything in it. The object
of lodging FIR is to set in motion the criminal justice system by reporting an offence when the
FIR mentions essentials facts or broad picture about it. FIR is not expected to be verbatim

7|Page
summary of the entire prosecution case. Therefore, non-mentioning of some facts which
happened prior to the occurrence or vague reference to them was held to be not fatal to the
prosecution case.

ANALYSIS OF SECTION 154

The first part which corresponds to sub-section(1) of S.154 deals with the procedure involved in
recording an FIR. An important component of this provision is that the information should be
given to an officer in charge of a police station. S.2 of the CrPC defines who an officer in charge
of a police station is. The officer in charge should reduce the information so given into writing.
The informant should also sign the FIR. If he does not then he can be punished under S.180 of
the Indian Penal Code which provides for punishment if a person refuses to sign a document.

The second part which corresponds to sub-section (2) of S.154 mentions that a copy of the FIR
should be given to the informant. The third part corresponds to sub-section(3) of S.154 which
contains the procedure to be followed in case the officer in charge of a police station refuses to
record the FIR.

Once, the FIR is recorded Sections 156 and 157 of the CrPC come into play. S.157 lays down the
procedure for investigation. The police officer has to send a report to the appropriate Magistrate
and take necessary steps for carrying out investigation. The Proviso to S.157(1) lays down a few
exceptions from the procedure prescribed under S.157(1) but the officer in charge of the police
station should record reasons for doing do as is laid down under S.157(2). If the officer in charge
of the police station is desirous of going ahead with the investigation he can do so. S.156 gives
the power to investigate cognizable cases without order of the Magistrate. S.156(2) is crucial as
it empowers the police to carry out investigation in any area without the investigation being
called into question. The commission of a cognizable offence can be reported at any police
station, irrespective of whether it has jurisdiction over the place where the alleged offence was
committed.

The FIR must clearly show the commission of a cognizable offence. This is one of the
prerequisites for a FIR. The researcher would like to elucidate this with the help of two
illustrations.

Illustration 1:

X is the officer in charge of the police station. A comes to the police station and tells X that there
is a lot of commotion in a certain market place. The officer enters this information into the
Station House Diary. Based on this information given by A, the officer goes to the market place
and finds out that a person has been killed. He questions an eye-witness and records his

8|Page
statement under S.154 of the CrPC. A question arises as to whether the information given by A
should be treated as the FIR as it was the first in point of time. The question one should consider
is whether the information so given discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If the
answer is yes, then the information does constitute the FIR or else it is not. In the instant fact
situation, the information does not show the commission of any cognizable offence at all. All
that was said was that there was a commotion in the market place and nothing else. A mere
commotion in the market place is not a cognizable offence.

Illustration 2:

X is the officer in charge of the police station. A comes to the police station and tells X that B, a
friend of A, was stabbed to death by M at the residence of B. The police records this information
in the Station House Diary. The SHO goes to the residence of B and verifies the information
given by A. X finds the information to be substantially correct. In such a situation, the
information given by A to X would constitute the FIR as it clearly shows the commission of a
cognizable offence.

Illustration 1 is quite similar to the facts of the case in Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab. In that
case however, there was a telephone call made to the police station stating that firing had taken
place in a taxi stand. The Supreme Court held that this would not constitute the FIR as it was
cryptic and anonymous and did not show the commission of a cognizable offence. The
information must unmistakably relate to the commission of a cognizable offence. A cryptic piece
of information received which does not disclose any authentic knowledge about the commission
of a cognizable offence would not be sufficient to register an FIR.

SECTION 1563
Police officer' s power to investigate cognizable case.

(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate,
investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area
within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the
provisions of Chapter XIII.

(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in
question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered
under this section to investigate.

(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation
as above- mentioned.

3
Code of criminal procedure 1973

9|Page
SCOPE AND APPLICATION OF SECTION 156

In the case of a cognizable offence the police may hold an investigation irrespective of any order
of the court. The court have no control in such cases over the investigation, or over the action of
the police in holding such investigation. The high court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction
cannot change the Investigation Officer in the mainstream and appoint any agency of its own
choice to investigate into a crime on whatsoever basis.

Sec 156 falling within Chapter 12, deals with power of police officers to investigate cognizable
offences. Investigation envisaged in Sec. 202 contained in chapter 15 is different from the
investigation contemplated under Sec 156 of the code. The various steps to be adopted for
investigation under Sec 156 of the code have been elaborated in chapter 12 of the code. Such
investigation would start with making the entry in a book to be kept by the officer in charge of a
police station, of the substance of the information relating to the commission of a cognizable
offence. The investigation started therefore can end up only with the report filed by the police as
indicated in Sec. 173 of the code. The investigation contemplated in that chapter can be
commenced by the police even without the order of a magistrate. But that does not mean that
when a Magistrate orders an investigation under Sec 156(3) it would be a different kind of
investigation. Such investigation must also end up only with the report contemplated in section
173 of the code. But when a magistrate order investigation under chapter 12 he does so before he
takes cognizance of the offence.4

SECTION 190
Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and
any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under
sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence—

(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;

(b) upon a police report of such facts;
(c) upon information 745received from any person other than a police
officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been
committed.

(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second
class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within
his competence to inquire into or try.

4
SARKAR, The Code Of Criminal Procedure, Lexis Nexis butterworths wadhwa, tenth edition 2012

10 | P a g e
This section describes the condition requisite for the initiation of proceedings.

Under Clause (b) a Magistrate is empowered to take cognizable of non-cognizable offences upon
a report in writing made by police-officer. Cognizable under Sec 190(1)(b) is taken only on the
basis of papers forwarded by police under Sec 173(2) CrPC, but when the Magistrate makes up
his mind to take into consideration other material or evidence, it would be a case of taking
cognizance under Sec 191(1)(a) and for that matter procedure prescribed for complaint xases
under Ss 200 and 202, CrPC has to be followed. It is not mandotary for the magistrate to forward
a complaint to police for investigation under Sec 156(3). The magistrate can coduct enquiry
himself under Sec 202 instead of forwarding the complaint to police. Thus, where a complaint
was filed before the magistrate under Sec 420 of IPC and the Magistrate decided to conduct
enquiry by himself and directed the compliant to produce witness after recording his sworn
statement, it was held that the action of the magistrate was proper.

'May take cognizance of any offence'.--The word "may take cognizance" in the context means
"must take cognizance". The Magistrate has no discretion in the matter; otherwise the section
will be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.
The Magistrate has to exercise sound judicial discretion and apply his mind to the facts
and evidence before him. It is a very fundamental function. A person's liberty is curtailed.
He is put to lot of mental tension in facing such an action which may ultimately be
dismissed by the same Court. Any slackness on his part can jeopardise and harm the
person against whom a reckless and baseless act ion is taken. It is an erroneous view that
the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence must necessarily have territorial
jurisdictions to try the case as well. If he is a Magistrate of the First Class, his power to
take cognizance is not impaired by territorial jurisdiction. If he is a Magistrate of the First
Class his power to take cognizance of the offence is not impaired by territorial restrictions;
after taking cognizance he may decide as to the Court which has jurisdiction to enquire
into or try the offence and that situation would reach only during the post-cognizance stage
and not earlier. The police report submitted by the investigating officer has to pass through
the judicial scrutiny of a Magistrate at the stage of taking cognizance. Although the
accused person has no right to be heard at that stage but in case the accused person has any
grouse against the investigating officer or with the method of investigation he can bring to
the notice of the Magistrate his grievances which can be looked into by the Magistrate.
Taking cognizance of an offence and issue of process are judicial functions and require a
judicious and not a routine approach. Taking cognizance of an offence is a judicial
function and not a judicial harassment. Taking cognizance means nothing more than taking
Judicial notice of the offence.
The Magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the investigating officer and he is competent
to exercise his discretion in his behalf, irrespective of the view expressed by the police in
their report and decide whether an offence has been made out or not. This is because the

11 | P a g e
 purpose of the police report under S. 173(2) of the Code, which will contain the facts
discovered or unearthed by the police as well as the conclusion drawn by the police
thereform is primarily to enable the Magistrate to satisfy himself whether on the basis of
the report and the material referred therein, a case for cognizance is made out or not.

Where the Magistrate without specifying the offence, which the accused has committed,
summons the accused, the order is illegal, as the Magistrate is required to take cognizance of the
offence and not merely of offender.

MAGISTRATE NOT BOUND BY REPORT.

The Magistrate is not bound by the report and inspite of that on the basis of the material
disclosed during the course of investigation he can take cognizance of the offence. The
Magistrate is not bound by the conclusion arrived at by the police, for taking cognizance of an
offence. The final report submitted by the police, as the case being false, is not binding on the
Magistrate. The Court is not bound by the opinion formed by the investigating officer, can take
cognizance against accused persons, even though not charge sheeted by the police.

A Magistrate is free to take cognizance either on the basis of the materials collected during
investigation and recorded in the case diary or on the basis of the allegations made in the Protest
petition. Where the Magistrate finds that prima facie case is made out from the materials in the
case diary, the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence, and it is not necessary for him to
consider the protest petition filed by the informant. A Magistrate is not bound to accept the
negative final report filed by the police and the Magistrate is required to apply its mind
independently of the conclusion arrived at by the police upon receipt of a police report under S.
173(2) of the Code to take cognizance of an offence under S. 190(1)(b) of the Code if prima
facie there exists a ground to proceed against the accused.

12 | P a g e
 OBJECTIVE OF RECORDING 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.

The accused in a trial always tries to show that the information first received by the police is the
FIR. Since the FIR marks the beginning of the investigation, the accused resorts to S.162 to
prevent the admissibility of any statement recorded by the police subsequently. Invariably, this is
the most common ground raised by the accused when the accused challenges the contents of the
FIR. This causes the police to act with caution when they receive any information as to the
possible commission of a cognizable offence. They go the scene of crime, ascertain more facts,
find a suitable eye-witness and record his statement as the FIR. This approach of the police is not
accused friendly, but indeed one may put forth convincing arguments for and against the
adoption of such a method adopted by the police. Thus, determining as to what piece of
information constitutes the FIR is in itself an extremely important task and has a significant
bearing on the very trial itself.

EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF FIR

The statements made to the police are if three categories- a) A statement which has been
recorded as an First Information Report ( herein after referred to as FIR) b) statement recorded
by the police in the course of investigation c)a statement recorded by the police but not falling
under the above (a) and (b) category.

None of the above statements can be considered as substantive evidence, that is to say, as
evidence of facts stated therein. Because it is not made during trial, it is not given on oath, nor is
it tested by cross- examination. If the person making any such statement to the police
subsequently appears and gives evidence in court at the time of trial, his former statement could ,
however be used to corroborate or to contradict his testimony according to the provisions of the
Evidence Act, 1872.

13 | P a g e
Section 157 of the Evidence Act is as follows:

“In order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by such a witness
relating to the same fact, at or about the time when the offence took place, or before any
authority legally competent to investigate the fact may be proved.”

Further, Section 145 of the Evidence Act provides:

“A witness may be crossed-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or

reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to
him, or being proved; but if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must,
before writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of
contradicting him.”

The FIR is not substantive evidence, but it can be used to corroborate the informant under
Section 157 of the Evidence Act, or to contradict him under Section 145 of the Act, if the
informant is called as a witness at the time of trial. Obviously, the FIR cannot be used for the
purposes of corroborating or contradicting any witness other than the one lodging the FIR.

The FIR can have better corroborative value if it is recorded before there is time and opportunity
to embellish or before the informant’s memory fails. Undue or unreasonable delay in lodging the
FIR therefore, inevitably gives rise to suspicion which puts the court on guard to look for the
possible motive and the explanation and consider its effect on the trustworthiness or otherwise of
the prosecution version. The fact that the FIR does not contain the names of the accused or of the
eyewitnesses, is normally an important circumstance, but the omission loses its significance if
the FIR is from a person other than an eyewitness.

If the FIR is given to the police by the accused himself, it cannot possibly be used either for
corroboration or contradiction because the accused cannot be a prosecution witness, and he
would very rarely offer himself to be a defense witness under section 315 of the code. Moreover,
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 as to his conduct. If FIR given by thee accused person is non- confessional,
it may be admissible in evidence against the accused as an admission under section 21 of the
Evidence Act, or again, as showing his conduct under section 8 of the Evidence Act.

The Supreme Court has observed on the said subject matter, stating that “the first information
report gives information of the commission of a cognizable crime. It may be made by the
complainant or by any other person knowing about the commission of such offence. It is

14 | P a g e
intended to set the criminal law in motion. Any information relating to the commission of a
cognizable offence is required to be reduced to writing by the officer in charge of the police
station which has to be signed by the person giving it and the substance thereof is required to be
entered into a book kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe. It
cannot be used as evidence against the person making it, if in case, he himself is accused in the
matter, neither to corroborate or contradict other witnesses. It is not the requirement of law that
the minutest details be recorded in the Fir lodged immediately after the occurrence. The fact of
the state of mental agony of the person making who generally is the victim himself , If not dead,
or the relations or associates of the deceased victim apparent under the shock of the occurrence
reported has always to be kept in mind.”

The FIR is the first version of the incident as received by the police. The statements in the FIR
must naturally get their due weight. An FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence. The Court has
to consider other evidence for deciding whether a case should stand or fall. An FIR, being not a
substantive evidence, it can be used as a previous statement for the purposes of either
corroborating its makers or for contradicting him. The statement of a victim of rape in cross-
examination which was not there in the FIR could not be used for contradicting her.

FIR is not an encyclopedia. It is only to set the law in motion. It need not elaborate but should
contain necessary allegations to constitute cognizable offences. As per section 154 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, stating the use of FIR, “a FIR is not a substantial piece of evidence. It
can only be used for corroborating or contradicting its maker. It cannot be used to corroborate or
contradict other witnesses…” Further," corroboration of its maker is permissible, but the first
information report cannot be used as substantive evidence or corroborating a statement of third
party…”The fact that a minute details are not mentioned should not be taken to mean the non-
existence of the fact stated. An FIR was made by close relatives of the deceased. Its reliability
was not allowed to be doubted on the ground that it was highly improbable that a close relative
would leave the victim in a hospital and would himself go to the police station, particularly so
when other relatives had also arrived at the hospital. There was no delay in recording the FIR and
sending the challanto the court. Absence of the names of the accused in the inquest report was of
no value because the investigating officer and the officer conducting inquest were not questioned
on that point.

THE ANONYMOUS FIR:

An anonymous FIR necessarily implies that the FIR is made by some person whom the SHO
does not know and cannot see. An anonymous FIR can be made over the telephone, via telegram,
via SMS or via the Internet. The cases of the same is discuss in the next chapter.

15 | P a g e
Implications of an Anonymous FIR:
Let us assume an anonymous telephone call has been recorded as the FIR by the police. This has
its own implications on the police as well as the accused. The police might be put at a
disadvantageous position. The telephone call might have disclosed the commission of a
cognizable offence but the police can never be sure that the event has happened. Once they go to
the crime scene, they find a few further facts from eye-witnesses but they cannot produce the
statements of such witnesses before the Court as their statement will be barred by S.162 of the
CrPC. This will prove beneficial to the accused. Another disadvantage is that the contents of the
telephone call when written down by the police cannot be read over back again to the informant.
The police would not be able to verify the contents of the FIR that it has recorded. This would
happen in cases where the informant makes a call to the police but disconnects before the
information recorded is read over to him. But to overcome this, the police can have a recording
device that tapes the whole telephone call.

An anonymous FIR might also be a disadvantage to the accused in a trial. When an FIR is
anonymous, it is implied that the maker will not testify in Court. Consequently, the accused
looses his very valuable right of cross-examination against the maker of the FIR. However, after
Dharma Rama Bhagare’s case, even if the maker contradicts himself, the prosecution might still
succeed if they have other reliable evidence. So, it may be said that the accused is not put to a big
hardship except for the fact that he looses his very valuable right to cross-examine the maker of
the FIR. He can still cross-examine the other witnesses.

In conspiracy cases, a definite information which justifies registration of case, is fairely after
making some enquiries. So it is not on every information that some persons are conspiring to do
an illegal act that an F.I.R. should be registered. "A police man passes through three stages in
conspiracy case; hears something of interest affecting the public security and which puts him on
the alert; makes discreet enquiries, takes soundings and sets up informations and is in the second
stage of enquiry or look out and finally gathers sufficient information enabling him to hit upon
something definite and that is the state when first information is recorded and then investigation
starts. Hence a preliminary enquiry made by the C.I.D. Police into relative information floating
about as to the existence of the conspiracy, the names and other details of the conspirators not
being known at the time is not investigation carried out u/s 156 Cr.P.C.

16 | P a g e
FIR IN DIFFERENT CASES
F.I.R. need only be registered when information is definite about conspirators and their acts
disclosing commission of cognizable offence.

F.I.R. IN CORRUPTION CASES

In cases of corruption, not registered on traps laid, but on complaints, always a suitable
preliminary enquiry into the allegation, is required. Such preliminary enquiries are relevant
before the registration of case and are permissible under law. But as soon as it became clear to
enquiring officer that the public servant appeared to be guilty of severe misconduct, it was his
duty to lodge F.I.R. and proceed further in the investigation.

F.I.R. IN MURDER CASES

In murder cases, following types of F.I.R.'s are recorded by police.

i) When it contains direct evidence of murder on the basis of ocular evidence.

ii) When the Police registers the case minimizing the offence from murder to 307 or u/s 364 IPC
to avoid its despatch to magistrate which otherwise is essential if case is really registered for
murder. This is invariably in those cases in which the informer is not sure of the culprits and
priliminary enquiry is required by Police to find out the facts and to show that the case was
registered properly.

iii) When a dead body identified or unidentified is recovered, with cause of death which is clear
and the injuries are apparent the neck is cut etc.

iv) When only inquest is held to discover the cause of death and the case is registered after the
report of Medical Officer, or after the receipt of report of chemical examiner etc with re- gard to
poison given to the deceased. Only a report is recorded in Daily Diary at the first instance.

(v) When the death is under suspicious circumstances and inves- tigation is necessary which
otherwise cannot be done without the registration of case. This is mainly in cases where dead
body is not available, but the circumstances indicate that cognizable offence has occurred.

17 | P a g e
 ROLE OF JUDICIARY

 CASE - Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs Dr. Manmohan Singh And Anr5

BENCH: G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly

FACTS OF THE CASE – appellant a politician and a public spirited person wrote a letter dated
29/11/2008 respondent 1 (Prime Minister) seeking sanction to prosecute Respondent 2, A. raja
who was a minister in the union council of minister formed by respondent 1. Sanction was
sought on the ground that respondent 2 has shown undue favor and caused huge loss to the
government while awarding new licenses for 2G mobile services. Letter dated 29-11-208 was
followed by reminder dated 30-5-2009, 23-10-2009, 8-3-2010 and 13-3-2010. After more than
one year and four months, the appellant received a reply dated 19-3-2010 from the secretary,
department of personnel and training that the central bureau of investigation (CBI) had already
registered a case on 21-10-2009 regarding alleged irregularities in grant of the said licenses, and
therefore the question of sanction for prosecution would arise after evidence collected by CBI
was considered. The appellant filed a writ petition in the high court seeking a mandamus to
Respondent 1 for granting sanction for prosecution. The high court dismissed the wrt petition on
the ground that mandamus could not be issued when the matter was being investigated by CBI.
The appellant thereafter approached the supreme court by way of anSLP. In between these event.
Respondent 2 resigned as MINISTER ON 14-11-2010. Subsequently, he was prosecuted by CBI
under the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

ISSUE INVOLVED – After respondent 2’s resignation the question regarding grant of sanction
as demanded by the appellant, became academic but the appellant prayed to the supreme court to
give a ruling as to whether he as a private party had locus standi to seek sanction for prosecution
notwithstanding that the CBI had initiated investigation in the meantime.

HELD – It was held that there is no restriction on private citizen filling a private complaint
against a public servant. Court is also not barred from taking cognizance of offence by relying on
incriminating material collected by private citizen. Locus standi of private citizen is therefore not
excluded. Private citizen’s right to file complaint against public servant, and to obtain sanction
for prosecuting public servant flows from rule of law. Access to justice is hallmark of indian
constitutional scheme and freedom of a private citizen to proceed against a corrupt public servant
cannot therefore be restricted. On facts held ( per curiam), prime Minister’s office (PMO) and
law ministry wrongly scuttled appellant private citizen’s move to prosecute a union cabinet
minister, by taking an untenable plea that CBI was already conducting investigation in regard to
the same allegations.

5
AIR (2012) 3 SCC 64

18 | P a g e
There is no provision either in the PC Act, 1988 or CrPC which bars a citizen from filling a
complaint for prosecution of a public servant who is alleged to have committed an offence. The
appellant private citizen has the right to file a complaint for prosecution of respondent 2 union
cabinet monister is respect of the offence allegedly committed by respondent 2 under the 1988
act.

 CASE - LALITA KUMARI (S) VERSUS GOVT. OF U.P. & ORS. (S) 6

BENCH – P Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan, Ranjana Prakash Desai, Ranjan Gogoi, S.A.
Bobde

FACTS OF THE CASE - The present writ petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution, has
been filed by one Lalita Kumari (minor) through her father, viz., Shri Bhola Kamat for the
issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus or direction(s) of like nature against the respondents herein
for the protection of his minor daughter who has been kidnapped. The grievance in the said writ
petition is that on 11.05.2008, a written report was submitted by the petitioner before the officer
in-charge of the police station concerned who did not take any action on the same. Thereafter,
when the Superintendent of Police was moved, an FIR was registered. According to the
petitioner, even thereafter, steps were not taken either for apprehending the accused or for the
recovery of the minor girl child.

ISSUE INVOLVED - Whether “a police officer is bound to register a First Information Report
(FIR) upon receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence
under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or the police officer has the power
to conduct a “preliminary inquiry” in order to test the veracity of such information before
registering the same?”

HELD - A plain reading of Section 154(1) of the Code provides that any information relating to
the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer-in-charge of a police station
shall be reduced into writing by him or under his direction. There is no ambiguity in the language
of Section 154(1) of the Code. [Para 36] 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 concerned officer 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. [Para 39] While registration of FIR is
mandatory, arrest of the accused immediately on registration of FIR is not at all mandatory. In
view of various counter claims regarding registration or non-registration, what is necessary is

6
AIR 2013 SC 983

19 | P a g e
only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence. In such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable
offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately
and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited
purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the
information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other
option but to register an FIR forthwith. [Paras 98 and 110] Court held: (i) 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. (ii) 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. (iii) 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. (iv)
The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if 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. (v) 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. (vi) The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be
made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c)
Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in
initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without
satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not
exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. (vii) 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. (viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily
Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, this Court directs 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, as mentioned above.

20 | P a g e
FIR AS SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE

 CASE - Machchi Singh v. State of Punjab,7

BENCH - Thakkar, M.P. (J)

FACTS:
A feud between two families has resulted in tragic consequences. Seventeen lives were lost in the
course of a series of five incidents which occurred in quick succession in five different villages,
situated in the vicinity of each other, in Punjab, on the night between August 12 and August 13,
1977. The seventeen persons who lost their lives and the three who sustained injuries included
men, women and children related to one Amar Singh and his sister PiaroBai. In this connection
one Machhi Singh and his eleven companions, close relatives and associates were prosecuted in
five sessions cases, each pertaining to the concerned village in which the killings took place.
Machhi Singh was the common accused at each trial. The composition of his co- accused
differed number-wise and identity-wise from trial to trial. At the conclusion of the series of trials,
the accused found guilty were convicted under appropriate provisions. Four of them were
awarded death sentence, whereas sentence of life imprisonment was imposed on nine of them.
They were also convicted for different offences and appropriate punishment was inflicted on
each of them in that behalf. The order of conviction and sentence gave rise to five murder
references and fourteen appeals by the convicts before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
Having lost their appeals and the death sentences having been con-firmed, the appellants have
come in appeal by way of special leave.

ISSUES INVOLVED:
(a) What normal guidelines are to be followed so as to identify the "rarest of rare cases" formula
for imposing death sentence, as spelled out in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, [1980] 2 SCR
864;

(b) Reliability of eye witnesses to a crime under light shed by the lantern in a village to identify
connect an accused to the crime;

(c) invocation of the doctrine of benefit of doubt; and

(d) the effect of non-summoning the magistrate for recording Dying declaration

7
AIR 1983 SC 957:1983 Cr LJ 1457

21 | P a g e
JUDGMENT ON ISSUE:
The order of conviction (passed by the Sessions Court and affirmed by the High Court) is inter-
alia based on the dying declaration of Mukhtiar Singh. He was fired at and injured soon after
midnight in the early morning of August.

He was removed to hospital on that very day. His police statement (which has been subsequently
treated as a dying declaration) was recorded on the 16th i.e. three days after the assault. He died
on the 18th, two days later. The evidence shows that he was in fit condition to make a statement
and his statement was truly and faithfully recorded. His statement has been considered to be
genuine and true by the Sessions Court and the High Court. It is true that the dying declaration
has not been recorded by a magistrate. But then the evidence shows that Mukhtiar Singh was
making good recovery and having regard to the condition of his health, no danger to his life was
apprehended. It was in this situation that a magistrate was not summoned. Thus, no fault can be
legitimately found on this score. Besides, the only question of importance now is as regards the
creditworthiness of the statement which has been recorded. Since this statement has been found
to be genuine and true nothing can detract from its value. The evidence provided by the dying
declaration is by itself good enough to support the order of conviction. But this is not all. Also
available is the evidence of Ujagar Singh and his daughter-in-law, Munibai. The evidence of
these two witnesses lends full corroboration to the dying declaration of the victim, and has been
rightly relied upon by the Sessions Court and the High Court. There is no reason to view the
evidence doubtfully. The presence of these two witnesses in the household was natural. Their
evidence shows that on hearing the report of gun they had concealed themselves behind a herd of
cattle and had witnessed the incident from there. The Supreme Court had no reason to disagree
with the view of the Sessions Court and the High Court that their evidence is reliable. There is no
substance in the argument that the culprits could not have been identified as the light shed by the
lantern was not adequate to enable identification. The finding of guilt is thus fully supported by
evidence. The Supreme Court accordingly confirmed the same unhesitatingly.

22 | P a g e
CASE - PANDURANG CHANDRAKANT MHATRE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA8

BENCH – D.K. JAIN, R.M. LODHA

It was held in Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre v. 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. Although first information report is not expected to
be encyclopaedia of events, but an information to the police to be “first information report”
under Section 154(1) must contain some essential and relevant details of the incident. A cryptic
information about commission of a cognizable offence irrespective of the nature and details of
such information may not be treated as an FIR. An FIR recorded without any loss of time is
likely to be free from embroideries, exaggerations and without anybody intermeddling with it
and polluting and adulterating the same with lies. The purpose of, FIR is to obtain the earliest
account of a cognizable offence, before there is an opportunity for the circumstances to be
forgotten and embellished. It is well settled that FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and
can be used to corroborate or contradict the statement of the maker thereof. It is also equally
established that trustworthiness of the prosecution story can also be judged from the FIR.
Besides first information report is relevant as it may be a part of the res gestae.

For the purpose of summoning someone mentioned in a FIR but has not been charge sheeted, the
FIR can be taken into consideration because it is evidence at that stage. Where an FIR is
registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted to the police and there was no mention
of the presence of some persons as eye- witnesses in it, it was held that the presence of those eye-
witnesses was rightly disbelieved.

As already said, the FIR is not substantive evidence; however its importance as conveying the
earliest information regarding the occurrence of a crime cannot be disputed. Moreover, it can be
used to corroborate the informant under Section 157 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or contradict
the witness under Section 145 of the same Act if the informant is called as a witness in the trial.

In State of Haryana v/s Bhajan Lal [AIR 1992 SC 604] it was held that the condition which is
sine qua non for recording a FIR is that there must be an information and that information must
disclose a cognizable offence .If any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before
an officer- in –charge of a police station satisfying the requirements 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.

23 | P a g e
Tohal Singh v/s State of Rajasthan,[1989 Cri LJ 1350(Raj HC )]it was held that ,’if the
telephonic message has been given to officer in charge of a police station ,the person giving the
message is an ascertained one or is capable of being ascertained the information has been
reduced into writing as required under S.154 of Cr.Pc and it is faithful record of such information
and the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and is not cryptic one or
incomplete in essential details, it would constitute FIR.

24 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION

The first information report means an information recorded by a police officer on duty given
either by the aggrieved person or any other person to the commission of an alleged offence. On
the basis of first information report, the police commences its investigation. Section 154 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 defines as to what amounts to first information. The supreme
has issued guideline on FIR which police needs to follow:

(i) 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.

(ii) 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.

(iii) 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.

(iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if 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.

(v) 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.

25 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

WEBLINKS:

https://www.lawctopus.com/fir-first-information-report/

https://www.lawctopus.com/fir-first-information-report/

http://lawbaba.in/fir/

http://indiankanoon.org/

BOOKS REFFERED:

 DhirajLal&Ratanlal, TheLaw of Evidence,(Nagpur : Wadhwa& Company), 2008

 D D Basu- Code of Criminal Procedure, 5th Edition 2014
 Ratanlal: Code of Criminal Procedure 21st Edition
 Singh Avtar, Priniciples of the Law of Evidence, (Allahabad : Central Law Publications),
2007
 K.N ChandrasekhranR.V. Kelkar's Lectures on Criminal Procedure Paperback – 31 Jan 2009

26 | P a g e