FIR and its Significance: a Comprehensive approach

Written by- 1- Vijay Katiyar

Deputy Director,

JTRI

2- Vandana Singh Katiyar

Researcher & Advocate

Introduction -

First Information Report is the ignition of the Criminal justice system. the purpose of registering FIR is to set the machinery of criminal Investigation into motion, which culminates with the filing of the police report and only after registration of FIR, beginning of Investigation in a case, collection of evidence during investigation and formation of the final opinion is the sequence which results in the filing of a report under section-173 Cr.P.C. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Sharma and others vs The State of Chhatisgarh and another, AIR,2016 SC 3930 propounded about the significance and purpose of FIR.

While any incidence has been taken place in respect of any cognizable offence then FIR is the First step towards criminal justice administration. In a very simple word you can say that FIR is the basic structure or foundation stone of a building upon which the structure of the criminal justice system raised.

What is FIR?

The very important question is before us that what is FIR means what is the meaning of the FIR? It is very clear that in the Code of Criminal Procedure or Indian Penal Code the term FIR has not been defined yet. But word FIR itself denotes that First Information Report, But the question is still before us that about whom then you can simply reply that about the cognizable offence . Now you can define in a simple term that FIR means the First Information about Cognizable offence. What is cognizable offence Section 2(c) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 defined as below-

(c) " cognizable offence" means an offence for which, and" cognizable case" means a case in which, a police officer may, in

accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant

The term offence is also defined under section 2 (n) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as below-

" offence" means any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force and includes any act in respect of which a complaint may be made under section- 20 of the Cattle- Trespass Act, 1871 (1 of 1871 );

The very serious question again arises before us that whether each and every first-time information regarding the commission of cognizable offence comes within the purview of FIR, If the answer is affirmative then why? If the answer is negative then why?

In the opinion of the author, the answer is negative because each and every piece of information made by any person first time before a police officer in respect of the commission of the cognizable offence does not come within the purview of FIR, unless and until it does not bear all the ingredients of the FIR. It means that if the information is given so, does not bear all the ingredients and information given so is vague and cryptic then it would not come within the purview of FIR.

Ingredients of FIR-

Now the next question is before us that what are the ingredients of the FIR? It is very clear that there is no provision regarding ingredients of the FIR, But on the basis of Interpretation laid down by the Court of records, it is necessary for the FIR it must be clear and unambiguous. It means that if information regarding cognizable offence receives in a cryptic and vague manner then such kind of information can not constitute a valid FIR. Now the question before us that in what circumstances information regarding cognizable offence would be clear and unambiguous. The reply of this particular question is also known as ingredients of the valid FIR, these are as follows-

Information in respect of cognizable offence must be bear particulars given below-

(1) Time of offence .

(2) Date of the offence.

(3) Name of the place of occurrence.

(4) Particulars of the informant/victim.

(5) Name or particulars of Accused persons.

(6) Description/Particulars of the incident.

For the detailed description, you can see the below case laws-

1- Sidhartha Vashisth: Alias Manu Sharma vs State (NCT of Delhi), CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 179 OF 2007 judgment dated 19th April 2010.

2-Damodar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2003 SC 4414.

In order to constitute an FIR in terms of section 154 of the Code. of Criminal Procedure, 1973 two conditions are to be fulfilled:-

(a) what is conveyed must be a piece of information; and

(b) that information should relate to the commission of a cognizable offence on the face of it.

Whether Information furnished through a telephonic message etc. would constitute a valid FIR or not?

There is not straight jacket answer to this proposition. Time and again it has been held by the Hon’ble Courts of our country that a telephonic conversation is generally made with an intention to gather police at the crime scene. In such cases, the telephonic conversation made between the informant and the police officer would not amount to the registration of the FIR.

Phone calls made immediately after an incident to the police constitute an FIR only when they are not vague and cryptic. Calls purely for the reason of getting the police to the scene of crime do not necessarily constitute the FIR”. Hence, as per the author's interpretation, a telephonic conversation would amount to the constitution of an FIR if the information furnished about the crime is unambiguous, clear, and in detail that satisfies the above-mentioned test (not vague and cryptic).

1- Sidhartha Vashisth: Alias Manu Sharma vs State (NCT of Delhi), CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 179 OF 2007 judgment dated 19th April 2010.

2-Damodar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2003 SC 4414.

Telephonic FIR whether FIR in law? :

Telephonic information to the police station about cognizable offence recorded in the daily diary book would be treated as FIR u/s 154 CrPC even when the said information though mentioning the names of assailants but the investigation has started on its basis. See :

1. Sunil Kumar Vs. The State of M.P., AIR 1997 SC 940

2. Vikram Vs. The state of Maharashtra, 2007 CrLJ 3193 (SC)

A cryptic telephonic message recorded at police station not to be treated as FIR :

A cryptic telephonic message was given to police to the effect that the accused accompanied by others assaulted the complainant party cannot be treated as an FIR u/s 154 CrPC when the said message did not disclose the letter of offence and the manner in which the offence was committed. See:

1. Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2016 SC 4531 (para 26).

2. Netaji Achyut Shinde (Patil) & Another vs State of Maharashtra, Criminal appeal No-121/2019 & 328/2020 Judgment dated March 23, 2021, SC.

R.T. message & FIR :

R.T. message or high frequency set message simply informing police that one person had died due to gunshot without disclosing the names of assailants or deceased, cannot be treated as FIR u/s 154 CrPC particularly when details of the occurrence regarding commission of 29 cognizable offence were subsequently conveyed to the police station officer. See :

1. Budhraj Singh Vs. State of U.P.,2006(5) ALJ (NOC) 972(All— D.B.)

2. Uppari Venkataswamy Vs. Public Prosecutor, 1996 SCC (Criminal) 284

3. Ramsinh Bavaji Jadeja Vs. The state of Gujarat, (1994) 2 SCC 685

Cryptic telephonic message not to be treated as FIR :

Where information by an individual to police regarding commission of the cognizable offence was given in the form of cryptic telephonic message not for purpose of lodging FIR but the police to reach the place of occurrence, it has been held that such Cryptic telephonic information can not be treated as FIR. See :

Sidharth Vashisth alias Manu sharma Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2010(69) ACC 833 (SC)

GD entries whether FIR? :

The gist of information regarding the commission of cognizable offences recorded in GD can legally be treated as FIR. See :

Superintendent of Police, CBI Vs. Tapan Kumar Singh, 2003 (46) ACC 961 (SC).

The only gist of information received required to be recorded in the general diary (GD) :

What is to be recorded in the general diary as per Section 44 of the Police Act, 1861 in the general diary is the only gist of information received and not the whole of information received. It cannot, therefore, be said that what is recorded in the general diary is to be considered as compliance with the requirement of Section 154 CrPC for registration of FIR. See :

Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of UP, AIR 2014 SC 187 (Five-Judge Bench).

Daily diary entry, not FIR:-

Where on receiving the telephonic message about the incident, SI made an entry in the Daily Diary report that after receiving the information he was proceeding to the spot along with other constables, it has been held that that was not an FIR u/s 154 CrPC and therefore non-mentioning of the names of the assailants in that entry cannot have any bearing on the case of the prosecution. See :

Thaman Kumar Vs. State, (2003) 6 SCC 380. 19(C-3).

Entries made in G.D. not to be treated as FIR registered u/s 154 CrPC:-

What is recorded in General Diary cannot be considered as compliance with the requirement of Section 154 CrPC of registration of FIR. See the below case law- :

Lalita Kumari Vs Govt. of UP, AIR 2014 SC 187 (Five-Judge Bench).

Information received by the police must be entered into the G.D.:-

Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a Police Station, all the 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. See :

Lalita Kumari Vs Govt. of UP, AIR 2014 SC 187 (Five-Judge Bench) (para 111 ).

Who can lodge FIR?

Anyone who has information about the commission of a cognizable offense can lodge an FIR. It is not necessary that he/she should be the victim or eye-witness himself. A police officer can lodge an FIR on his own if he comes to know about the Commission of a cognizable offence. In Hallu & Ors. vs. the State of M.P, AIR 1974 1936 SC, it was held that “Section 154 does not require that the Report must be given by a person who has personal knowledge of the incident reported. The section speaks of information relating to the commission of a cognizable offense given to an officer in charge of a police station.”

Use of FIR-

An FIR can be used for many purposes some of those are as follows-

1. For the purpose of corroboration and contradiction against maker if he is examining.

2. For the purpose of testing that information is not afterthought or piece of evidence Resgaste or conduct.

3. For the purpose of Dying declaration.

4. For the purpose of admission under Sec-21 Evidence Act.

5. For the purpose of recovery of articles under Sec-27 Evidence Act. See the case laws as below-

1. A. Nagesia vs State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119

2. Damodar Prasad vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SC 622.

How to register non-cognizable offenses?

• In non-cognizable offences, when an informant approaches the officer in charge, the officer enters such information in his book (maintained as per the format prescribed by the State Government).

• Secondly, a police officer can begin with the investigation for a non-cognizable offense, only after receiving an order from the magistrate under section 155(2) of the CrPC.

The investigating powers of a police officer are the same in respect of cognizable and non-cognizable offences, except the power to arrest without a warrant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Of West Bengal & Ors vs. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors held that “there is no such thing like unfettered discretion in the realm of powers defined by statutes and indeed, unlimited discretion in that sphere can become a ruthless destroyer of personal freedom. The power to investigate into cognizable offences must, therefore, be exercised strictly on the condition on which it is granted by the Code”.

Hence, it can be concluded that if a person wants to register a complaint regarding the commission of a non-cognizable offense, he/she has to first register a complaint with the magistrate having proper jurisdiction. There are no strict norms pertaining to the format of a complaint. A complaint can be in the form of an affidavit or a petition as the case may be. After receiving the complaint, the magistrate will decide upon the issue of cognizance. If the magistrate is satisfied that a non-cognizable offense has been committed, he will order further investigations.

What are the remedies available if the police refuse to lodge FIR?

It is not always illegal when the officer in charge refuses to lodge the FIR. As it all depends upon the reason because of which the police officer refuses to lodge the FIR. If the police officer refuses to lodge the FIR because the case does not fall within their jurisdiction, deals with an offense which is non-cognizable in nature or it is outside their legal capacity to take cognizance of such an offense, in such circumstances the refusal to lodge an FIR is legitimate and justified.

Although, if the FIR is refused on the ground of jurisdiction, it is mandatory for the police officer to record information about the commission of a cognizable offense and forward the same to the police station having proper jurisdiction. Otherwise, it would amount to dereliction of duty.

If the refusal to lodge FIR is not legitimate then there are two kinds of remedies available to the person who want to lodge FIR these are statutory or primary or immediate remedy and another is the judicial remedy which can be get by the Court of records under article-32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution.

1-Statutory Remedies

(a) Under section 154(3) CrPC – When an informant’s right to register the FIR is refused, he/she can approach the Superintendent of Police and submit the substance of such information in writing by post. If the Superintendent of Police is satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offense then, he might investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him.

(b) Under section 156(3), read with section 190 CrPC – If an informant remains unsatisfied even after pursuing the remedy under section 154(3), he/she can further pursue the remedy mentioned under section 156(3) read with section 190 CrPC.

This is a different channel to get the FIR registered. This remedy is similar to the process of registering a complaint about non-cognizable offences. As through this channel, a magistrate first take cognizance of an offense under section 190 and then order for consequential investigations under section 156(3 )

(c) Under section 200 CrPC – A complaint can be submitted to the magistrate orally or in writing under section 200 of the CrPC. After the submission of a complaint, the magistrate will conduct a hearing, deciding upon the issue of cognizance. In this channel, the complainant and the witnesses thereof are examined on oath in front of the magistrate.

2-Judicial remedy- Mandamus is one of the prerogative writs issued by the superior Courts (High Court or Supreme Court), which is in the form of a command to the State, its instrumentality or its functionaries as the case may be, to compel them to perform their constitutional/statutory/public duty. Hence, a writ of mandamus can be filed under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution of India, directing the police officials to perform their duty and register the FIR.

Can I pursue the Judicial Remedy before the Statutory Remedy?

It is a well-settled principle that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar while filing a writ petition. In other words, it is nowhere expressly mentioned that a writ petition cannot be filed if there exists an alternative remedy. Although, on perusal of the various High Court’s and Supreme Court’s decisions, it can be concluded that ordinarily, the courts prefer and advise to first exhaust the remedies available to an informant. Some of the examples of such decisions are mentioned below:

1- Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P, MANU/SC/8179/2007

2- Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and others, reported in, MANU/SC/2975/2007.

3- Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Ors, MANU/SC/1328/2010.

The procedure for lodging FIR-

The process of filing an FIR is very simple. It is as simple as narrating a story to the police. The informant has to visit the police station (ideally near the crime scene) and furnish all the information he/she has pertaining to the commission of an offence. Section 154 of the CrPC gives a choice to the informant to furnish information orally or in writing. If the information is disclosed orally then, the report must be reduced to writing by the police officer himself or under his direction. The report must be read out to the informant. Every report whether reduced to writing or submitted in written form shall be signed by the informant. The procedure in respect of lodging FIR has been prescribed in Cr.P.C. under section-154 these are as follows-

154. Information in cognizable cases

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 under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB, section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer;

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, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB, section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code 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.

(1) 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 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.

The provision in section 154 regarding the reduction of oral statement to writing and obtaining the signature of the informant to it, is for the purpose of discouraging irresponsible statements about criminal offences by fixing the informant with the responsibility for the statement he makes. Refusal by the informant to sign the first information is an offence punishable under section 180 of the Indian Penal Code. The absence of signatures on the first information report by the informant, however, is not necessary to the extent that it will vitiate and nullify such a report. The first information is still admissible in evidence.

In other words, FIR is only a complaint to set the affairs of law and order in motion and it is only at the investigation stage that all the details can be gathered. In one of the judgments, the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that the report of the crime which is persuading the police machinery towards starting investigation is FIR, subsequent reports are/were written, they are not hit under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and cannot be treated as such.

What was the fate of prosecution case if Informant/complainant when turning hostile & not proving FIR ?:

Once registration of the FIR is proved by the police and the same is accepted on record by the Court and the prosecution establishes its case beyond reasonable doubt by other admissible, cogent and relevant evidence, it will be impermissible for the Court to ignore the evidentiary value of the FIR. It is settled law that FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence. But certainly, it is a relevant circumstance of the evidence produced by the investigating agency. Merely because the informant turns hostile it cannot be said that the FIR would lose all of its relevancy and cannot be looked into for any purpose. See Bable Vs. The state of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2012 SC 2621.

Whether the Public prosecutor is bound or not to examine such witnesses which are not supportive of the prosecution's case:-

Under S. 226 CrPC the public prosecutor has to state what evidence he proposes to adduce for proving the guilt of the accused. If he knew at that stage itself that certain persons cited by the investigating agency as witnesses might not support the prosecution case he is at liberty to state before the court that fact. Alternatively, he can wait further and obtain direct information about the version which any particular witness might speak in Court. If that version is not in support of the prosecution case it would be unreasonable to insist on the Public Prosecutor to examine those persons as witnesses for the prosecution. When the case reaches the stage envisaged in S. 231 of the Code the Sessions Judge is obliged "to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution". It is clear from the said Section that the Public Prosecutor is expected to produce evidence "in support of the prosecution" and not in derogation of the prosecution case. At the said stage the Public Prosecutor would be in a position to make a decision as to which among the persons cited are to be examined. If there are too many witnesses on the same point the Public Prosecutor is at liberty to choose two or some among them alone so that the time of the Court can be saved from repetitious depositions on the same factual aspects. That principle applies when there are too many witnesses cited if they all had sustained injuries at the occurrence. The Public Prosecutor in such cases is not obliged to examine all the injured witnesses. If he is satisfied by examining any two or three of them, it is open to him to inform the Court that he does not propose to examine the remaining persons in that category. This will help not only the prosecution for relieving itself of the strain of adducing repetitive evidence on the same point but also helps the Court considerably in lessening the workload. Time has come to make every effort possible to lessen the workload, particularly those Courts crammed with cases, but without impairing the cause of justice. See below case laws-

(i) Sandeep Vs. The state of UP, (2012) 6 SCC 107. (ii) Hukum Singh & others Vs. The state of Rajasthan, 2001 CrLJ 511 (SC).

Whether reports Newspaper can be treated as evidence or not? :

Newspaper reports would be treated as hearsay evidence and cannot be relied upon. See the below case laws- :

1. Joseph M. Puthussery Vs. T.S. John, AIR 2011 SC 906.

2. Laxmi Raj Shetty Vs. The state of T.N, AIR 1988 SC 1274.

3. Quamarul Ismam Vs. S.K. Kanta, 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 5.

Whether FIR is a substantive piece of evidence or not? :-

It is settled law that an FIR registered under Section 154 CrPC is not a substantive piece of evidence. See Bable Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2012 SC 2621 17(B).Evidentiary value of FIR is not lost if informant turns hostile: Once registration of the FIR is proved by the police and the same is accepted on record by the Court and the prosecution establishes its case beyond reasonable doubt by other admissible, cogent and relevant evidence, it will be impermissible for the Court to ignore the evidentiary value of the FIR. It is settled law that FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence. But certainly, it is a relevant circumstance of the evidence produced by the investigating agency. Merely because the informant turns hostile it cannot be said that the FIR would lose all of its relevancy and cannot be looked into for any purpose. See the below case law:-

Bable Vs. The state of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2012 SC 2621.

What would be the fate of FIR if Informant/complainant when turning hostile:-

Bable Vs. The state of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2012 SC 2621

Scribe of FIR when not examined? :

Non-examination of the scribe of FIR is not fatal to prosecution and no adverse inference can be drawn against prosecution if the scribe was not an eye-witness to the incident and the complainant/informant had proved the execution of the FIR by examining himself as PW:-

1. Moti Lal Vs. The State of U.P., 2009 (7) Supreme 632

2. Anil Kumar Vs. The State of U.P., (2003) 3 SCC 569

Non-mentioning of the name of accused in FIR not fatal to prosecution case:-

It is well settled that if the name of the accused is not mentioned in the FIR, but the case has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the same cannot be fatal to the prosecution case. See the case laws :

(i) Mukesh Vs. State for NCT of Delhi & Others, AIR 2017 SC 2161 (Three-Judge Bench)

(ii) Mritunjoy Biswas Vs Pranab alias Kuti Biswas & Another, AIR 2013 SC 3334.

Whether FIR can be used in respect o other witnesses- It is an established principle that FIR can be used only in respect of the maker, it means that it can not be used to discredit the testimony of other witnesses. See the below case law-

1. George vs the State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 1376.

FIR lodged by the Accused-

If an FIR has been lodged by the Accused himself the exculpatory part of the FIR would be admissible against him under Sec-21 and 27 Evidence Act. But as a confessional statement, the FIR would not be admissible against the Accused. See the below case law-

1. Dal Singh vs Emperor, AIR 1917 PC 25.

2. Faddi vs State of MP, AIR 1964 SC 1850.

3. Aghnoo Negesia vs State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119.

4. Murli vs State of Rajasthan, AIR 1994 SC 610.

5. Bheru Singh vs State of Rajasthan, (1994) 2 SCC 467.

5. Ramaiah vs State of A.P., AIR 1997 SC 496.

Whether correction or overwriting can fatal the prosecution case-

mere correction or overwriting can not fatal the prosecution case unless there is a serious improvement in a version of the prosecution. See the case law-

1. Golla Pullana vs State of AP, AIR 1966 SC 2727.

2. State of UP vs Hari om, AIR 1998 SCW 4130.

Appreciation of FIR & its contents:-

The FIR is not the encyclopedia of all the facts relating to crime. The only requirement is that at the time of lodging FIR, the informant should state all those facts which normally strike to mind and help in assessing the gravity of the crime or identity of the culprit briefly. See below case laws- :

1. State of MP Vs. Chhaakki Lal, AIR 2019 SC 381.

2. Prabhu Dayal Vs. The state of Rajasthan, (2018) 8 SCC 127

3. Motiram Padu Joshi Vs. The state of Maharashtra, (2018) 9 SCC 429

4. Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs. The state of Maharashtra, (2016) 10 SCC 537.

5. Jarnail Singh Vs. The state of Punjab, 2009 (6) Supreme 526 18(C).

Non-mentioning of the name of a witness in FIR not fatal:-

Testimony of witness cannot be disbelieved merely because of non-mentioning of his name in FIR. See :

Prabhu Dayal Vs. The state of Rajasthan, (2018) 8 SCC 127

Information regarding cognizable offence from two or more sources & FIR:-

Where two information regarding the commission of cognizable offence are received and recorded and it is contended before the court that the one projected by the prosecution as FIR is not the real FIR but some other information recorded earlier (in GD) is the FIR, that is a matter which the court trying the accused has jurisdiction to decide. See :

1. Superintendent of Police, CBI Vs. Tapan Kumar Singh, 2003 (46) ACC 961 (SC)

2. Vikram Vs. The state of Maharashtra, 2007 CrLJ 3193 (SC)

Witness when not named in FIR or charge-sheet: Mentioning of names of all witnesses in FIR or in statements u/s 161 CrPC is not a requirement of law. Such witnesses can also be examined by the prosecution with the permission of the court. Non-mentioning of the name of any witness in the FIR would not justify rejection of the evidence of the eye-witness :

1. Prabhu Dayal Vs. The state of Rajasthan, (2018) 8 SCC 127

2. Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar, 2003(47) ACC 1068 (SC)

3. Chittarlal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 6 SCC 397

4. Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of M.P., 2002(44) ACC 1112 (SC)

5. Sri Bhagwan Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2001)6 SCC 296

6. Satnam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2000)1 SCC 662

Delayed FIR and delayed recording of statement of PWs by I.O. u/s 161 CrPC—

effect thereof? : Delay in lodging of FIR—if causes are not attributable to any effort to concoct a version and the delay is satisfactorily explained by prosecution, no consequence shall be attached to mere delay in lodging FIR and the delay would not adversely affect the case of the prosecution. Delay caused in sending the copy of FIR to Magistrate would also be immaterial if the prosecution has been able to prove its case by its reliable evidence :

1. State of MP Vs. Chhaakki Lal, AIR 2019 SC 381

2. Mukesh Vs. State for NCT of Delhi & Others, AIR 2017 SC 2161 (Three-Judge Bench).

3. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar, 2008 (61) ACC 972 (SC)

4. Rabindra Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2006 (54) ACC 543 (SC)

5. Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, 2005 (2) SCJ 505

6. State of H.P. Vs. Shree Kant Shekari, (2004) 8 SCC 153

7. Munshi Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, 2002(1) JIC 186 (SC)

8. Ravinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, 2001 (2) JIC 981 (SC)

9. Sheo Ram Vs. State of U.P., (1998) 1 SCC 149

10.State of Karnataka Vs. Moin Patel, AIR 1996 SC 3041 25.

Delayed sending of FIR to Magistrate u/s 157 CrPC :

Delay in sending a copy of FIR to the area Magistrate is not material where the FIR is shown to have been lodged promptly and investigation had started on that basis. Delay is not material in the event when the prosecution has given a cogent and reasonable explanation for it. Mere delay in sending the FIR to Magistrate u/s 157 CrPC cannot lead to a conclusion that the trial is vitiated or the accused is entitle to be acquitted on that ground. The accused must show that prejudice was caused to him by delayed sending of the FIR to the Magistrate u/s 157 CrPC. See:

(i) Ramji Singh Vs. State of UP, (2020) 2 SCC 425

(ii) Jafel Biswas Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2019 SC 519.

(iii) Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318

(iv) State of Punjab Vs. Hakam Singh, (2005)7 SCC 408

Whether Accused is entitled to get a copy before the stage of Sec- 207 CrPC?

Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued the following directions in respect of providing a copy of the FIR to the Accused as well as uploading it to the website-

(1) An accused is entitled to get a copy of the FIR at an earlier stage than as prescribed under sec-207

(2) Suspect Accused has the right to submit an application for grant of certified copy before concerned Police Officer or to Superintendent of Police on payment of the prescribed fee.

(3) On an application being filed for a certified copy of the FIR on behalf of the accused, the same shall be given by the Court concerned within two working days.

(4) Copy of the FIR except in sensitive cases like sexual offences, offences pertaining to insurgency, and terrorism should be uploaded on the website within 24 hours of registration. See the case law-

Youth Bar Association of India vs Union of India and others, AIR 2016 SC 4136.

Whether second FIR can be lodged or not?

There can be no second FIR in the event of any further information being received by the Investigating Agency in the respect of offence or same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more offence because it is his by Sec-162 Code of Criminal Procedure. See the case law-

Awdhesh Kumar sha alias Akhilesh Kumar Jha vs State of Bihar, AIR 2016 SC 373.

Whether FIR can be lodged against the dead person-

Now the very important question is before us that whether FIR can be lodged against death person? Even though this issue is very debatable because some High Courts clearly denied that FIR can not lodge against the dead person but some High Courts are of the view that FIR can be lodged against a dead person. But this dispute has been ended right now and Hon'ble Supreme Court has established that FIR can lodge against a dead person, even though Human Rights workers are criticizing that judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. But in others' opinion for the purpose of seeking private defence, the purpose of an accident claim is required by the same. See the below case laws-

1- PUCL vs State of Maharashtra, Criminal appeal No- 1255/1999, judgment dated 23.09.2014.

2- Rajiv Gandhi Ekta Samiti vs Union of India, 2000, Cri. L.J. 2002 Delhi.

3- Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee vs the State of AP, 2008 Cri. L.J. 402 (FB)

Summing up-

It is very clear from the above discussion that FIR is the foundation stone of the Criminal justice system. But it also inculcates that the procedural and technical shortcomings in respect of FIR must be ignored by the Court of law and in the interest of justice adjudication or trial of the accused should be made by the same.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, March 16, 2021