LAW OF CRIMES - II

INTRODUCTION

To begin any investigation, it is quite obvious that the police need to know that an offence has
been committed. This can be possible if someone approaches the police station and gives the
details of the offence committed. This is often called as the First Information Report and has
been contemplated under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973.

The information with respect to a non-cognizable offence can be given under Sec. 155 of CrPC.
The police officer can start the investigation in the reported offence after such information is
received under Sections 156 and 157 of CrPC. Case laws have developed to establish various
principles with respect to FIR such as: it is sufficient if an FIR indicates that an offence has been
committed, the names of offender or witnesses are not required to be disclosed while filing an
FIR. Every minute detail is not required, informant need not have personal knowledge of the
incident, it may be given by anyone who witnesses the crime or hears from someone that a crime
has been committed, etc.

Basically, an FIR commences the investigation in a criminal case. Such report, not being
substantive evidence, may be used in the trial either for corroborating or contradicting the
evidence. However, such information is not a condition precedent to the setting in motion of the
criminal investigation. Therefore, it is often disputed in one's mind as to why such information is
to be given. That is, the basis for recording such information. Also, how a common man should
know as to what exactly is to be informed to the police if one witnesses a crime or overhears it.
These are some of the pertinent issues which need to be addressed before one understands the
procedure of filing an FIR and other technical issues relating to it as contemplated under CrPC
and as developed by case laws.

RAHUL KEDIA
102/BCOM/LLB/13026Page 1
 LAW OF CRIMES - II

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

FIR is nowhere defined in CrPC. However, many authors have attempted to explain the meaning
of FIR. In fact it is important for a common man to know the meaning of FIR and what are the
requirements of FIR. It is only when the person has knowledge about FIR can he/she file an FIR
in order to put the investigation into motion. Let us, therefore, examine the meaning principles
and requirements of FIR as discussed in various case laws.1

The legal mandate enshrined in Section 154(1) is that every information relating to the
commission of a "cognizable offence" (as defined under Section 2(c) of the Code) if given
orally (in which case it is to be reduced into writing) or in writing to "an officer in charge of a
police station" (within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Code) and signed by the informant
should be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may
prescribe which form is commonly called as First Information Report and which act of
entering the information in the said form is known as registration of a crime or a case.2

HISTORY OF FIR

The above sub-section corresponds to Section 154 of the old Code (Act of 1955) and also to
Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1882 (Act X of 1882) except for the slight
variation in that expression 'local Government' had been used in 1882 in the place of 'State
Government'. Presently, on the recommendations of the 41st Report of the Law Commission, the
sub-sections (2) and (3) have been newly added. Section 154(1) regulates the manner of
recording the First Information Report relating to the commission of a cognizable offence.

1 Dipankur Sharma, Critical Analysis of S.154 (First Information Report) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.

2 http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/criminal-law/registration-of-fir.php

RAHUL KEDIA
102/BCOM/LLB/13026Page 2
 LAW OF CRIMES - II

REQUIREMENTS OF FIR

The condition which is sine qua non for recording a First Information Report is that there must
be information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence. It is, therefore,
manifestly clear that 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. Section 154 states that when information is
given to the Police Officer about the commission of a particular crime then such information
should be reduced to writing by the officer-in-charge of the police station and later entered into
the Station House Diary or any other book meant for such purpose. It is also necessary that the
informant signs such written report and a copy of the same should be handed over to the
informant after it is read out to him/her by the Police Officer.3

Therefore, where actual information of the robbery was given to the Circle Inspector of Police
but the said information was not recorded the subsequent statement recorded by the Station
House Officer cannot be considered as FIR. Similarly where a person reported to a police officer
that he had seen a woman with her throat cut and the officer did not make a record of the fact but
subsequently treated information lodged by the woman's father as the first information in the
case. It was held that the unrecorded Information and not the information given by woman's
father was -in fact the first information.4

3 State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604.

4 Arpen v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1.

RAHUL KEDIA
102/BCOM/LLB/13026Page 3
 LAW OF CRIMES - II

It is also important that the information should relate to a cognizable offence. Moreover, vague,
indefinite and cryptic information cannot be considered as FIR. Also. it has been held that the
FIR need not be an encyclopedia of all the events and what is required to be stated is the basic
prosecution case.

Thus, the basic requirements of FIR as per the section are that, in case of a cognizable offence, if
information is given to an officer-in-charge of the police station orally, then,

1. It shall be reduced to writing by such officer;

2. Such information shall then be read out to the informant;

3. The signature of the informant shall be received on the written information;

4. And. finally, it shall be entered in the diary \book meant for this purpose, by such officer.

5. A copy of the report is also to be handed over to the informant under clause (2) of the section.

Thus, it is well settled in the case laws as to what an FIR is and what are the basic requirements
of a valid FIR. It is essential is for a person filing an FIR to know about as these principles of
FIR. A person need not tell all minute details about the incident and need not disclose the names
of the accused 11 or the eye-witnesses. This should be told to the informant in advance before he
reports about the crime. In case, this is not done, the person may, disclose some facts which may
be confessional in nature and may go against the Informant himself/herself. This is contrary to
the principle of FIR.5

5 Nidhi Vaidya, First Information Report (FIR) Modes of Lodging and Legal Aspects of Credibility.

RAHUL KEDIA
102/BCOM/LLB/13026Page 4
 LAW OF CRIMES - II

OBJECT OF FIR

The main object of FIR from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law into
motion and from the point of view of the investigating authorities is to obtain information about
the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps to trace and bring to book the
guilty. It has been held that Sec. 154 has three-fold objective:

Firstly, to inform the Magistrate of the District and the District Superintendent of Police who are
responsible for the peace and safety of the district.

Secondly, to make known to the Judicial officers before whom the case is ultimately tried what
are the material facts on which investigation is commenced; and

Thirdly, to safeguard against subsequent forgetfulness and embellishment on part of the

Clearly, an FIR helps police in going ahead with the investigation as it provides the police with
the initial information of the crime committed. Such FIR lodged by common citizens is a kind of
help forwarded by them to the police to take cognizance of the offence that has been committed
in their locality. The legal position as to the object, value and use of first information report is
well settled. The principal object of the first information report from the point of view of the
informant is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of view of the investigating
authorities is to obtain reliable and genuine to book the guilty party. The first information report,
we may point out, does not constitute substantive evidence though its importance as conveying

6 Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed, AIR 1945 PC 18.

RAHUL KEDIA
102/BCOM/LLB/13026Page 5
 LAW OF CRIMES - II

the earliest information regarding the occurrence cannot be doubted. It can, however, only be
used as a previous statement for the purpose of either corroborating its maker under Section 157
of the Indian Evidence Act or for contradicting him under Section 145 of that Act.7

It cannot be used for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting other witnesses. 8 However it
has been held that the receipt or recording of an FIR by the police is not a condition precedent to
the setting into motion of a criminal investigation. This means that if a Police Officer starts the
investigation of a cognizable offence and goes to the spot on hearing about the commission of a
crime; without recording it in accordance with Section 154, the prosecution or trial thereafter
cannot be vitiated on the ground that there was no FIR in the case. But if information is received
and it is recorded in accordance with Section 154 such FIR becomes the basis of the case set up
by the informant even though it may not be admissible as substantive evidence.9

However, under Section 154(3), it is mandatory for an officer-in-charge of the police station to
record the FIR if someone approaches him for giving information about a crime. If the officer
refuses to record the FIR the informant may send the substance of such information to the
Superintendent of Police (SP) who may take necessary actions in this regard and may even ask
the officer-in-charge to start the investigation upon such information. Therefore as earlier said
that the FIR is not a condition precedent but it cannot be refused if a person is willing to give
such information. But, it is important to note here that such non-compliance with Section 154
and not filing FIR when the informant approaches the officer in-charge has not been made illegal
or punishable under CrPC. This means that even after receiving the information, the officer in-
charge may not record it and may not proceed with the investigation.

7 Hasib v. State Of Bihar, 1972 (78) CRLJ 0233 SC.

8 Khan v. State, AIR 1962 Cal 641.

9 Chandra Bhal v. State of UP, (1972) SCC 290.

RAHUL KEDIA
102/BCOM/LLB/13026Page 6
 LAW OF CRIMES - II

The informant, who in most cases will be a common man, may not know his right under CrPC
that he can approach SP in such cases, and would be helpless to take any action against such
officer. This negligence on part of the Police Officers may hamper the law and order in the
society. Also, even if the person knows about such right of going to the SP, he/she may ignore
such right if he/she is a mere witness to the incident since he/she would be reluctant to go into
too much of hassle.

Further sending the information to the SP by post may take too much of time and by that time the
evidence and witnesses may be manipulated by the accused. This makes the main objective of
FIR completely futile. Furthermore, it has been held that FIR though being an important and
valuable document cannot be considered to be the last word of the prosecution because an
eyewitness need not make it nor is it required to give full details. It merely marks the beginning
of the investigation and its value must accordingly depend on the circumstances of each case.
Including the nature of the crime, the position of the informant and the opportunity he had of
witnessing the whole or part of the commission of the offence. It is not substantive evidence and
can only be used to either corroborate or contradict the evidence and witnesses.10

From this discussion it is quite evident that FIR is in fact a highly valuable and vital piece of
evidence in a criminal trial. It is necessary to corroborate the oral evidence in the case. It is the
first version of the incident and is of considerable value as it reveals the materials, that the
investigation commences with and what the original version of the story was. It has high
practical value since the information is from the earliest instance, when the memory is clear and
vivid. But as discussed above, it is not mandatory and if it is not recorded then it would not affect
the trial in any way.

10 Nidhi Vaidya, First Information Report (FIR) Modes of Lodging and Legal Aspects of Credibility.

RAHUL KEDIA
102/BCOM/LLB/13026Page 7
 LAW OF CRIMES - II

In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal11, it was held that when the petitioner approaches the police
and prays for registration of FIR. The police have no option but to register it and thereafter start
investigations. A critic of FIR points out. Even though the contents of the FIR and the details
therein are very explicit, the instances of misusing these entries and inadequate entering of the
necessary details are rampant. Often, even if information is given, with graphic details, the police
fail to record a statement and to initiate any action. It is the duty, of the police officer in charge of
a station to record the information and take appropriate action. But often the officer-in charge
fails to perform his duty. The reasons are manifold - lack of responsibility corruption, nepotism
etc.

Whatever the reason, the mechanism that ought to be set in motion simply does not work,
resulting in failure of justice. Cognizable offences are reported to the police, yet are not recorded,
or recorded carelessly, or falsely recorded on purpose to permit the accused an easy walk through
in the trial.12

He further says, "The Criminal Procedure Code has laid down provisions for reporting the
offences and the modus of recording, but it has failed to foresee the possibility of an officer
committing errors either willfully or accidentally. The only safeguard is to address the superior
officer on the dereliction of duty by a subordinate officer. But this is limited to cases when the
officer-in-charge fails to record the information, and not where the information recorded is
improper. Under any circumstances, the law again places utmost confidence in the police officer.
What if the higher officer is also corrupt or reluctant to act to meet the ends of justice?

The only option for the informant is to approach the Courts to redress the grievances, which
would take at least six to seven months to begin an inquiry given the number of cases pending
disposal before the various Courts this country. Such investigations suffer inordinate delays

11 1992 Cri LJ 527.

12 Bishan v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 573.

RAHUL KEDIA
102/BCOM/LLB/13026Page 8
 LAW OF CRIMES - II

before being set into motion. Yet the very purpose of recording an FIR is to get a picture of the
incident while it is clear and vivid in the informant's memory. That is probably why the law does
not even permit a preliminary enquiry into the incident before recording an FIR, because it
would destroy its value and pave the way for fabrication of cases.13

It is therefore well understood that FIR is quite significant report which give the first hand report
about a particular incident of crime and directs the police to take: adequate steps to prevent such
crime or investigate further into it, provided such FIR is properly recorded by the officer-in-
charge of the police station and is not considered a mere "oral story" of the incident given by the
informant.

VALIDITY OF UNRELIABALE & INGENUINE INFORMATION

At the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a
cognizable offence in compliance with the mandate of a Section 154 (1) of the Code, the
concerned police officer cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information, laid by
the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that
the information is not reliable or credible. On the other hand, the officer in charge of a police
station is statutorily obliged to register a case and then to proceed with the investigation if he has
reason to suspect the commission of an offence, which he is empowered under Section 156 of the
Code to investigate, subject to the proviso to Section 157.

In case an officer in charge of a police station refuses to exercise the jurisdiction vested on him
and to register a case on the information of a cognizable offence, reported and thereby violates
the statutory duty cast upon him, the person aggrieved by such refusal can send the substance of
the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned who if satisfied
that the information forwarded to him discloses a cognizable offence, should either investigate
13 Kartar v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 214.

RAHUL KEDIA
102/BCOM/LLB/13026Page 9
 LAW OF CRIMES - II

the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him in
the manner provided by sub-section (3) of Section 154 of the Code.14

Punishment for giving false information to the Police is dealt with by Sections 182, 203 and 211
of the IPC. Even if such information is not reduced to writing under Sec. 154, the person giving
the false information may nevertheless be punished for preferring a false charge under Sec. 211
of the IPC. A Police Officer refusing to enter in the Diary a report made to him about the
commission of an offence, and instead making an entry which is totally different from the
information given, would be guilty under Sec. 177 of the IPC.15

ANONYMOUS FIR

This is one of the most controversial issues in the disclosure of First Information Report. Now in
case the FIR is given on telephone and the person/informant does not disclose his/ her identity
then in such cases whether the FIR should be considered as cryptic and. Therefore inadmissible
is a moot question. Let us delve into this issue and try to examine it in the light of case laws.

Information given on telephone cannot be signed as per the requirements of Sec. 154. But this
does not affect the admissibility of the document and such requirement may only be considered
as technical formality. Thus, SC in Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab16 on the issue whether the
telephone message can be considered as FIR or not came to the conclusion that prima facie
cryptic and anonymous oral message which did not in terms clearly specify a cognizable offence
cannot be treated as First Information Report. The mere fact that this information was the first in
14 State of Bombay v. Rusy Mistry, AIR 1960 SC 391.

15 http://www.shareyouressays.com/118022/first-information-report-f-i-r-section-154-of-code-of-
criminal-procedure

16 AIR 1970 SC 1566.

RAHUL KEDIA
102/BCOM/LLB/13026Page 10
 LAW OF CRIMES - II

point of time does not by itself clothe it with the character of First Information Report. The
question whether or not a particular document constitutes an FIR has to be determined on the
relevant circumstances of each case. In this case the Supreme Court was dealing with
information, which was received by the Police station, which was taken down in the daily diary
of the Police Station. However, it was a cryptic and anonymous oral message which did not in
terms specify any cognizable offence.

In another case of Soma Bhai v. State of Gujarat17the complainant had made the report
regarding the occurrence of a crime to the Sub-Inspector who however before reducing it to
writing by w y of abundant caution tried to seek further instruction by a telephone message from
the main police station at Surat. It was held, that the facts narrated to the S.I. which were reduced
to writing, a few minutes later, undoubtedly constituted the FIR.

But the message given to the Surat Police Station was too cryptic to constitute a First information
Report within the meaning of Sec. 154 of the Code and was meant to be only for the purpose of
getting further instructions. The Court further said: "The FIR is required to state all the
necessary facts and a cryptic message by itself could not satisfy such requirement.

But in Tohal Singh v. State of Rajasthan,18 the Rajasthan HC observed 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 to
writing as required under Sec. 154 of Cr. P.C. and it is a 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."

17 AIR 1970 SC 1566.

18 (1999) 1 SCC 554.

RAHUL KEDIA
102/BCOM/LLB/13026Page 11
 LAW OF CRIMES - II

Thus, the High Court tried to make an exception by stating that if it is easily discernible as to
whom the informant is then even a telephone message will be considered as FIR.

However in Dhananjoy Chattejee v. State of W.B.19 Their Lordships of the Supreme Court
indicated that the vague and indefinite information given on the telephone, which made the
investigating agency only to rush to the scene of occurrence could not be treated as a First
Information Report under sec. 154, CrPC. In yet another case of Ram Singh Bavaji Jadeja v.
State of Gujarat,20 their Lordships observed that any telephone information about commission of
a cognizable offence, irrespective of the nature and details of such information is not an FIR but
it shall be deemed to be a statement made by a person to the Police Officer in. the course of
investigation covered - by Sec. 162, CrPC. But recently many High Courts have held that a
telephone message can be considered as FIR provided it discloses the particulars required by
Sec. 154. CrPC about the commission of cognizable offence.

At the same time High Court has held that laconic information received on telephone giving no
detail of the occurrence could not be an FIR. Thus where the counsel for the appellant contended
that the telephonic message received at the police station was the first information of the crime
and FIR should have been registered on that basis alone. In such circumstances of the case the
laconic information received on telephone giving no details of the offence could not have been &
aid to be the first Information and the official did the right thing in reaching the spot on the basis
of the information and registering First Information Report.

Thus, there have been conflicting view points between the Supreme Court and various High
Courts as regards the issue of anonymous FIRs. Whereas Supreme Court has not deviated from
Its earlier stance considering the telephone message where the name of the informant was not
disclosed and which is cryptic in nature, will not constitute an FIR: on the other hand the High

19 AIR 1995 SCW 510.

20 1994 CrLJ 3067.

RAHUL KEDIA
102/BCOM/LLB/13026Page 12
 LAW OF CRIMES - II

Courts in recent past have taken a stance different from that of the Supreme Court and have been
considering a telephone message which is a faithful record of the commission of an offence will
be FIR and the fact that such FIR has not followed the procedure contemplated by Sec. 154 of
CrPC would not affect the validity and credibility of such information. Since, till now no
Supreme Court judgment has affirmed this stance it is quite difficult to say that these High Court
judgments resolve the issue authoritatively.21

Thus. for all obvious reasons, a telephone message should also be considered as first information
about a particular offence and should be duly recorded under sec. 154 of CrPC and mere non-
signing of such document would not affect its validity and admissibility as evidence. Such
information would set the criminal investigation into motion. If it is faithfully and truly made and
recorded and is not cryptic in nature. However, if the, information given is false and informant
was a mere a crank-caller, then if such person is caught by the police he/she can be convicted
under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF FIR

Although first information recorded by the police is of considerable value at the trial showing as
it does on what materials the investigation commenced, it is not a piece of substantive evidence,
but may only be considered for the purpose of corroboration under Section 157 of the Indian
Evidence Act, if all the provisions thereof are complied with.

It is admissible in evidence against the maker or informant. It can be used only as a previous
statement admissible to corroborate or contradict a statement made by the informant
subsequently in the court. It can, therefore, be used only for the purpose of corroborating or

21 Nidhi Vaidya, First Information Report (FIR) Modes of Lodging and Legal Aspects of Credibility.

RAHUL KEDIA
102/BCOM/LLB/13026Page 13
 LAW OF CRIMES - II

contradicting the maker thereof. That is all the use it can be put to. As already stated, the first
information report is not a substantive piece of evidence. Where the maker himself becomes the
accused it cannot be used as evidence against the maker nor is to corroborate or contradict other
witnesses and it therefore not evidence.22

The substance of Section 154 of CrPC is, therefore, this that every information lodged in the
police station relating to the commission or suspected commission of a cognizable offence must
be reduced to writing if not already in writing form and a substance of it must be entered in a
book kept in the police station.

Only that information, be it recorded as in the manner prescribed by Section 154 of the Code, or
not but on which investigation in the case is commenced by the police is the first information of
the occurrence. The law does not contemplate that when in the course of the investigation
something is elicited first information can thereupon be recorded.

It is a matter of law whether an information is the first information or not, and it is not open to
the officer-in-charge of the police station to treat an information as such or not according to his
discretion.

There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for any preliminary enquiry prior to
investigation or prior to the lodging of the information within the meaning of Section 154 of the
Code. If circumstances indicate that after receiving some information, however incomplete, the
police officer had commenced investigation, any subsequent information given to him about the
commission of the offence by any other person cannot be regarded as first information report in

22 Public Prosecutor v. Thula Singh, (1963) 2 Mad. L.J. 473.

RAHUL KEDIA
102/BCOM/LLB/13026Page 14
 LAW OF CRIMES - II

the case and would not be admissible under Section 154 of the Code read with Section 157 of the
Evidence Act, being hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

If there is suppression of first information report and the responsibility for such suppression lies
at the door of the prosecution apart from the inference to be drawn against the-prosecution under
Section 114 illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, a case of prejudice to the accused is definitely
made out.23

Clearly, it can be reiterated again that FIR is a very important piece of evidence in a criminal
case. Refusal to record an FIR means losing substantial evidence in the case. Thus, in case where
the Police Officer in course of dereliction of his duties, refuses to record FIR. It may cause u
serious Impediment to the case in hand. Since FIR is the first hand primary evidence, it is
extremely valuable to the case. Refusal to record FIR may even encourage crimes in the society
as in such case most of the crimes will go unnoticed and unrecorded due to inefficiency of Police
Officers.24

VARIOUS ASPECTS OF FIR

1. The omissions in FIR are to be considered along with other evidence to determine whether act
so omitted never happened at all.25

23 http://www.shareyouressays.com/112880/what-do-you-understand-by-first-information- report-what-is-its-
evidentiary-value-crpc-1973-india

24 Raj Kumar Yadav, Predicaments Relating to First Information Report in India.

25 Rattan Singh v. State of HP, 1997 (1) SCR 4.

RAHUL KEDIA
102/BCOM/LLB/13026Page 15
 LAW OF CRIMES - II

2. Some statements were made by the witness after lodging of the, FIR, but the same was not
recorded in the case diary because it was not deemed necessary. Court held that non-
availability of statement of that witness u/s 16l would not cause prejudice to defence so not
fatal to the prosecution.26

3. Mere non-examination of witness, does not materially affect prosecution case before the
Court.27

4. FIR to a Police Officer: If any information disclosed before Police Officer, the Police Officer
is liable to register a case on the basis of such information.28

5. Accused entitled to certified copy: F.I.R. is public document and accused is entitled to
certified copy of the same.29

6. Statement becoming the FlR: Murder took place in a busy market place. Deceased was taken
to hospital by his brother. Constable on duty at the hospital sent telephonic message to the
police station. Police Sub-Inspector reached the hospital and recorded the statement of the
deceased's brother who named the accused as the assailant. It was held that this statement was

26 Meharban & Ors. v. State of MP, 1997 Cr LJ 76.

27 Habil Mia v. State of T ripura, 1997 Cr LJ 1866 (Gau).

28 State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 (SC) 601.

29 Jayantibhai Lalubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 1992 CrLJ 2377 (Guj).

RAHUL KEDIA
102/BCOM/LLB/13026Page 16
 LAW OF CRIMES - II

to be considered as the F.I.R. and not the (earlier) cryptic telephonic message from the
constable.30

7. Delay in lodging FIR: Such delay does not matter to the Court if the offence is properly
explained with nature of facts and circumstances. The court giving importance to the
reluctance of the family member of prosecutor and herself and repetition, honour of the
family.31

8. The delay in lodging the first information report should be properly explained.32

9. F.I.R. recorded in small hours of next day of murder is no delay.33

10. Delay in sending FIR: When FIR. was recorded at 3.25 p.m. and dispatched next morning to
Magistrate there was no delay in sending FIR.34

30 Ramsinh Bavaji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, 1994 Cr LJ 3067 (SC).

31 State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh & Others, AIR 1996 SC 1393.

32 Kanhiyalal v. State of Rajasthan, 1989 Cr LJ 1482.

33 Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 1328.

34 Madru Singh v. State of M.P. , AIR 1997 SC 3527.

RAHUL KEDIA
102/BCOM/LLB/13026Page 17
 LAW OF CRIMES - II

11. Delay in dispatching of FIR: Dispatching of FIR to Magistrate after three days of its
recording without any explanation for delay will support defence contention that F.I.R. was
after thought.35

12. Cognizable offence--Information regarding Cognizability: Information relating to

13. Evidence: Non-mention of name of accused in F.I.R. and inquest report by witness cannot
be a ground for rejecting his evidence.37

14. Adverse inference: No adverse inference can be drawn when relations of deceased reach
scene of occurrence instead of informing the police.

15. Message on telephone: Given on Telephone as cognizable offence, reduced in writing and
signed by complainant, it amounts to FIR.

35 P. Natarajan v. Station House Officer, (1991) 1 Crimes 15 (Mad).

36 Eqbal Baig v. State of AP., 1987 Cr 838.

37 S.G. Gundegowda v. State, 1996 Cr LJ 852 (Kar).

RAHUL KEDIA
102/BCOM/LLB/13026Page 18
 LAW OF CRIMES - II

16. Non-mention of name of witness: If the name of the eye-witness to the occurrence is given
in the F.I.R. that increases the credibility of the information. However, non-mention of such
witness does not render the information unreliable.38

QUASHING OF FIR

In Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana39 Chandrachud, J. while disapproving the

"It surprises us in the extreme that the High Court thought that in the exercise ofits inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it could quash a First
Information Report. The Police had not even commenced investigation into the complaint
filed by the Warden of the University and no proceeding at all was pending in any Court in
pursuance of the F. I. R. It ought to be realized that inherent powers do not confer an
arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That statutory
power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases."

The Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. J. A. C. Saldanha,40 examined the question whether,
when the investigation was in progress, the High Court was justified in interfering with the

38 Puthuparambil Papachan alias Thomas v. State of Kerala, 1994 Cr LJ 334.

39 (1977) 4 SCC 451.

40 AIR 1980 SC 326.

RAHUL KEDIA
102/BCOM/LLB/13026Page 19
 LAW OF CRIMES - II

investigation and prohibiting or precluding further investigation in exercise of its extraordinary

On the facts of that case, this Court set aside the order of the High Court quashing the order of
the Magistrate in postponing the consideration of the report submitted to him till the final report
of completion of further investigation, directed by the State Government was submitted to him
and held that the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction committed a grave error
in giving the direction virtually amounting to mandamus to close the case before the
investigation was complete.

The classic exposition of the law is found in State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha,41 In
this case, Chandrachud, C.J. in his concurring separate judgment has stated that

"if the FIR does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court would be
justified in quashing the investigation on the basis of the information as laid or received".

Justice A.P. Sen who wrote the main judgment in that case with which Chandrachud, CJ and
Varadarajan, J. agreed has laid the legal proposition. The legal position is well-settled. The legal
position appears to be that if an offence is disclosed, the Court will not normally interfere with an
investigation into the case and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed;
if, however, the materials do not disclose an offence, no investigation should normally be
permitted.

Once an offence is disclosed, an investigation into the offence must necessarily follow in the
interests of justice. If, however, no offence is disclosed, an investigation cannot be permitted, as
41 AIR 1982 SC 94.

RAHUL KEDIA
102/BCOM/LLB/13026Page 20
 LAW OF CRIMES - II

any investigation, in the absence of any offence being disclosed, will result in unnecessary
harassment to a party, whose liberty and property may be put to jeopardy for nothing. The liberty
and property of any individual are sacred and sacrosanct and the Court zealously guards them
and protects them.42

CONCLUSION

FIR is an extremely vital report, which sets the criminal investigation into motion. Also, being
the earliest report it is a valuable piece of evidence in any criminal trial either for corroborating
evidence or for contradicting witnesses. Therefore, it becomes necessary that such report be
recorded in all circumstances especially where the person has come to the police station to lodge
an FIR against a particular crime. But a clear reading of S. 154 does not put any pressure on the
Police Officer to lodge an FIR.

The provision merely stops by saying that in case of any refusal on part of the officer-in-charge
the informant may report the matter to the Superintendent of Police who will then take necessary
actions. In such circumstances in most of the cases the report would not be taken into cognizance
of land consequently no action would be taker as regards the crime.

42 Nidhi Vaidya, First Information Report (FIR) Modes of Lodging and Legal Aspects of Credibility.

RAHUL KEDIA
102/BCOM/LLB/13026Page 21
 LAW OF CRIMES - II

Thus, it is highly recommended that In case of a refusal to lodge the FIR by the Police Officer
stringent action should be taken against such officer by higher-authorities' of the Police
epartment. in terms of departmental inquiry etc. for the dereliction of duty on part of such Police
Officer. It Is also suggested that the provision should be strictly interpreted by considering
"shall" as "must" for all reasons and thereby mandating the Police Officers to take down the
report given' by an informant.

Also frequent visits should be made to the police stations by senior Police Officers to see that
there has been no dereliction of duties by, the officers-in-charge and other men In that police
station. Grievance, if any of the., people in that locality against the working of the Police
Officers should be given a careful hearing and appropriate action should be taken against them.

Further, so far as the issue of anonymous telephone messages is concerned as has already been
discussed in the project they are for no reason to be considered a cryptic merely because certain
procedural requirements as mentioned in Section 154 has not been met with. Any complaint if it
discloses the correct facts about the commission of an offence should be considered a valid FIR
and the Police Officer should initiate an investigation soon after receiving such complaint. It is
the duty of every Police Officer to prevent the commission of crimes and maintain law and order
in the society, and should also provide protection to the citizens. Thus, by considering an
anonymous telephone FIR to be a mere crank or cryptic" message, the police cannot ignore such
information.

Perhaps, the person would not have been in a position to disclose his/her identity. Of perhaps
he/she would not like to disclose his/her identity to prevent getting into any investigative inquiry
by the police and hence he/she gave anonymous message to the police.

RAHUL KEDIA
102/BCOM/LLB/13026Page 22
 LAW OF CRIMES - II

Therefore, police officer without considering all these immaterial issues regarding FIRs such as
name for the informant signature of the informant. etc. should Immediately take action against
the crime reported. Since FIR is the first information about a crime, such telephone message
being earliest in time should be considered as FIR and any statement recorded thereafter should
be considered as statements made during the investigation thus being hit by Section 162 of
Evidence Act.

Conclusively, it can be said that FIR is an important report and if duly recorded provides a
valuable evidence in a case to whatever extent possible, such information should be lodged with
the police as soon as one gets to know about an offence having been committed. In this way
citizens can help the police In preventing crimes and maintaining law and order in the society,
who would otherwise get to know about the commission of a crime while sitting in the police
station.

RAHUL KEDIA
102/BCOM/LLB/13026Page 23