DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

NAME OF THE PROJECT TOPIC

POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF KARTA

SUBJECT
Code of Criminal Procedure Code

NAME OF THE FACULTY

SOMA BHATTACHARJYA

NAME OF THE STUDENT: PUNURU PRADEEP

VAMSEE KRISHNA
REGD NO: 2016076
2016118
SECTION: B
4th SEMESTER

1
LODGING AND IMPORTANCE OF FIR-ABSTRACT

First Information Report(FIR) is a written document by a police officer on an information given to

him of a cognizable offence, filed under Sec.154 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. FIR let’s police
to investigate accordingly by the information provided to him which has been written on the FIR.
The victim or the relative of victim or the witness can go forward to lodge an FIR. With the
development in technology that’s being used there has been introduction of online filing of FIR and
telephonic FIR. The police officer can go further and do a preliminary inquiry before lodging of an
FIR if there is any doubt or ambiguity on the information provided in such as telephonic way of
filing an FIR. If in a case the police officer rejects to file an FIR, the victim can file a copy of it
before Superintendent of Police and on further rejection, victim can approach the Judicial Magistrate
to take cognizance of the offence.

2
SYNOPSIS

Research Question: Why filing an FIR is important and How can it be filed?

Objective of the study: To understand the importance, ways to file, how to file and the time
constraint involved in filing of an FIR.

Research Methodology: Doctrinal Research method.

Review of literature: The concept is explained in relation to

- Registration of FIR, available at http://www.livelaw.in/guidelines-issued-supreme-court-fir/
- Youth Bar Association v Union of India,
- Lalitha Kumari v Union of India,
- State of U.P v Nahar Singh,
- Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P, etc.

Scope of study: This scope of the project is being restricted to INDIA in relation to lodging an FIR
according to the Criminal procedure code, 1973.

Significance of the study: To understand who can file an FIR through what all means and how
much time do they have to file one.

Chapterization:

1. Introduction
2. Object and importance of first investigation report
3.1. Procedure for lodging and FIR
3.2. Evidence value in an FIR
3.3. Refusal of lodging an FIR and vague information
3.4. Delay in lodging FIR
3.5.Quashing of an FIR
3.6. E-FIR
4. Conclusion
5. Bibliography
3
 P. PRADEEP
(2016076)
Y. VAMSEE KRISHNA
(2016118)

4
 INTRODUCTION

F.I.R. is a report relating to the commission of a cognizable offence given to the police and recorded
by it under Section 154, CrPC.1 It is the earliest report made to the police officer with a view to his
taking action.2 In fact, it is an information given to a police officer by an informant on which the
investigation is commenced.3
Requirements or Contents 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. The parliament has, in order to safeguard the authenticity of the version
made by informant at the earliest point of time, without giving any room for any complaint of
tampering with it and also to protect it from any subsequent variations or additions, introduced sub-
section (2) to Section 154, CrPC.
Section 154 (1) and (2), CrPC provides the following requirements or mode of registering FIR:
1. Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, shall be reduced in writing
by the officer-in-charge of the police station;

2. It should be read over to the informant by him;

3. It 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 Stete Government may prescribe in this behalf and

4. A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost,
to the informant.
ESSENTIALS OF F.I.R.
SHO should keep in mind 11Ws while recording FIR.
1. W -- what information has come to convey
2. W -- In what capacity
3. W -- Who committed crime.
4. W -- Whom against crime committed
5. W -- When (Time)
6. W -- Where (Place)
7. W -- Why (Motive)
5
8. W -- Which may (actual occurrence)

9. W -- Witnesses.

10.W -- What was taken away.

11.W -- What traces were left by the accused

WHO CAN LODGE F.I.R.

(1) Complainant who is an aggrieved person or some body on his behalf.

(2) By any person who is aware of the offence (a) as an eye witness and (b) as an hearsay account.

(3) Provided the person in possession of the hearsay is required to subscribe his signature to it and
mention the source of his information so that it does not amount to irresponsible rumour. The rule of
law is, if general law is broken any person has a right to complain whether he has suffered an injury
or not. (a) By the accused himself. (b) By SHO on his own knowledge or information even when
a cognizable offence is committed in view of a officer incharge he can register a case himself and is
not bound to take down in writing any information. Under the order of Magistrate u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
when a complaint is forwarded to officer incharge without taking cognizance . If information is only
hear say, then SHO should register case only if person in possession of hear say subscribes his
signature to it and mentions the source of his information so that it does not amount to irresponsible
rumor. The information must be definite, not vague, authentic, not baseless, gossip or rumour, clearly
making out a cognizable case.

(4) The information is only by a medical certificate or doctor’s ruqqa about arrival of injured, then he
(S.H.O.) should enter it in daily diary and go to hospital for recording detailed statement of injured.

WHO CAN WRITE F.I.R

(1) A FIR is always to be written by an officer incharge of a Police Station. (Definition of

officer incharge is given in sec. 2 Cr.P.C.)

(2) According to sec. 36Cr.P.C.” Police officers superior in rank to officer incharge of a Police
Station may exercise the same powers through the local area to which they are appointed, as may be
exercised by SHO within the limit of his Police Station.

(3) Sometimes it so happens that’s the information is given by the informer to a Police officer who is
out on the illaqa of a local Police Post. Strictly speaking the officers are not officers incharge of a

6
Police Station and such information lodged with them are not reported under section 154 Cr.P.C.
These officers record the statement of the informers F.I.Rs. These officers record the statement of the
informers and send the same on to the SHO of a Police Station for recording F.I.Rs These statements
are however admissible U/S 157 Evidence Act.

(4) Jurisdiction is an essential factor in registering a F.I.R. The provisions regarding jurisdiction
contained in section 177 to 184 Cr.P.C and 462 Cr.P.c. are guiding factor.

7
 OBJECT AND IMPORTANCE OF FIR
The purpose and object of lodging and First information report can be from two point of views, from
the point of view of victim or informant it is for the operation of criminal law and from the view of
investigating authorities is to obtain information of the offence, investigate and take steps
accordingly. Lodging of FIR is important as it is a valuable piece of evidence when reported
immediately after witnessing commission of offence, it can be used in trail for corroboration of
evidence and truthfulness of witnesses. It is also important as it is the piece of information which is
available to the investigating authorities to start the investigation and set criminal law into motion 1. It
is important because it gives information regarding the circumstances in which offence has been
committed and names of accused. Lodging of prompt FIR substantially reduces chances of
embellishment and possibility of false implication of accused to barest minimum especially when the
information is without any animus against the accused.2 Especially in Criminal cases there is no rule
stating that the injured or the victim must always be the first informant. FIR serves as the basic
feature of a prosecution case. It can be a mere document of statement by the informant and the
witnesses and it is not necessary that each and every detail shall be contained in it. Omission as to
some of the facts can be tolerated but where the facts that are the base for case are missing in an FIR,
it cannot serve the purpose of the prosecution. FIR is never a substantive piece of evidence it can
only be a corroborative piece of evidence u/s. 157of CrPC or 145 of Indian Evidence Act. In Gulshan
Kumar v. State3, where the accused killed his brother and father and father in injured state named the
accused in the hospital, it was held that an unaided FIR is of great value. When a witness contradicts
from his statement in FIR, his evidentiary value is not considered however crucial he might be for
the conviction of the accused. It is also the duty of the police officer to check into the truthfulness of
information whenever an FIR is lodged and not directly take the accused into custody. It is necessary
that important information to be FIR as it tests the veracity of the prosecution case. It serves as early
information, to take steps by police and in general there no limitation. Authenticity is tested when
First informant dies through corroboration and in case of victim it is considered as Dying
Declaration. Delay in lodging FIR is never fatal but has to be explained in court.

It was observed by the Court in Mohan Lal v. State6 that, “the principal object of the first
information report is only to make a complaint to the police to set the criminal law in motion. Its
secondary though equally important object is to obtain early information of an alleged criminal

1
Bhagwan Singh v state of M.P, (2002) 9 SCC (Cri) 736
2
Ramesh Nana Ghorpade v State of Maharashtra 1996 Cr LJ 2185 (Bom)
3
1993 Cr LJ 1525 (Del)

8
activity to record the circumstances before there is time for such circumstances to be forgotten or
embellished”
It is valuable document which throws much light on the state of affairs which were known at the time
of its making at least to the persons making it. Consequently, if at the trial a story is given which
differs in material particulars from the one given in the first report, it has always been treated with
great suspicion. Its importance lies in the fact that it si a statement which is made soon after the
occurrence of when memory is fresh and there is want of opportunity for successful fabrication. The
implication is that once the prosecution case is put in the FIR, opportunities for improving it are
considerably reduced because any prosecution case that may be subsequently set up can be checked
in the light of the first report particularly when it is made by the complainant himself. It also shows
on what materials the investigation commenced and what was the story then told4.

4
Mahendra Pal v. State, 1955 Cr. L.J. 892.

9
 PROCEDURE FOR LODGING FIR
FIR can be lodged in two ways,
- before the officer-in-charge of Police station or the Station House Officer under section 154,
or
- By a complaint before a Magistrate under section 190 of the Act.

S.154 relates to any information received by a police regarding any cognizable case. FIR has to be
filed only by the officer-in-charge of the police station and it does not necessarily require it be a
Superintendent of Police. S.154(1), clearly states that after the receipt of information it has to be
reduced to writing and it also mandates the police to read-out to the complainant the information
reduced to writing and has to be signed by the complainant. The 2013 Amendment, has brought in
some addition to this provision i.e., where the complaint is under 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D, 376,
376A, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376E, 324A or 324B, then such information has to be recorded by a
woman police officer or any woman officer. S.154(1)(b) also mandates when such information is
taken at the home of victim who is disabled, etc. then such recording has to be videographed. And
when it is recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under s.164, such statement has to be sent to the police
officer as soon as possible.
Once an FIR is lodged by the police it has to be sent to the Magistrate within 24 hours or in case of
any delay not exceeding 48 hours and delay in forwarding the complaint to the magistrate has to be
explained at trail. No order of the magistrate is required for arrest or investigation in a cognizable
case. At the same time, when an FIR is directed to be lodged on a complaint the Magistrate has every
power to deliver it an investigating authority or can investigate himself.
Section 200 to 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the procedure regulating
complaints made by private persons. If a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence on a complaint,
he must first of all examine the complainant and witnesses, if any, on oath, and must then reduce the
substance of such examination into writing. This must also be signed by the complainant, the
witnesses, and also by the Magistrate.
If a complaint is in respect of a dispute of a civil nature, it ought to be dismissed, even if dressed up
as a crime. If, on the other hand, the allegations contained in the complaint disclose a criminal
offence, the Magistrate should not dismiss the complaint, simply because technical language is not
used in the complaint.
Whenever a person approaches a police officer he has every power with regard to the preliminary
enquiry into the truthfulness of the information. But when it comes to complaint, the magistrate
enquires the complainant along with the witnesses and concludes with regard to the information. In

10
Rajendra Singh Katoch v. Chandigarh Admin.5, it was stated that the duty of police officer to register
the FIR has been held as not taking away the need to make a preliminary inquiry before registering
it.
There are also other means through which an FIR can be lodged, such as;
Telephonic Lodging of FIR:
A message or information through a telephone can be an FIR. But, cryptic information received and
recorded by police even by identifiable person cannot be termed as an FIR 6. It also said that the
object of such information can only be to get the police to the scene and not to register an FIR. In
Thaman Kumar v State7, where a constable received an information that 3 persons assaulted the
deceased and requested the police force at night, the court held such report cannot be treated as an
FIR, but was meant only as an entry to record the departure of police personnel and it also stated that
non-mentioning of names of assailants was not material.
A cryptic and indefinite message can also be treated as an FIR if it for the addition that it proves the
circumstances in which the crime was committed though not satisfies the requirements of s.154. A
cryptic information to be treated as an FIR, though does not include the names of accused or number
of offenders. But, if it has little information regarding the cognizable case or the manner in which
such offence has been committed can be qualified, it doesn’t require the minute details but it needs to
have information regarding the nature and manner of offence. An FIR cannot be rejected just on the
grounds that it was cryptic or received from anonymous person or has been received by Magistrate
through Post and that non-examination of informant does not affect the prosecution case. It can also
be lodged by sending a telegram, etc.

E-FIR

Most people dread going to the police station when a crime takes place. There is usually a feeling
that registering a complaint is a tedious process or the police will not be cooperative. But, that
shouldn’t stop anybody from taking action against a crime. When you approach the police station,
you are required to file an first information report or a complaint. This document record’s the
complainant’s perspective on the come committed. Fir can be lodged by the person against whom the
offence is committed by the person who knows that the offence has been committed, or by the person
who has seen the commissioning of an offence A complaint is a n allegation made oraly or in writing
that some person has committed an offence. A complaint is addressed to a magistrate The procedure

5
AIR 2008 SC 178
6
Mundrika Mahto v State of Bihar, (2002) 9 SCC 183
7
2003 Cr LJ 3070 (SC)

11
of filing an FIR is mentioned under section 154 of Cr.p.C, 1973. Usually one needs to visit the police
station to file a complaint or an fir. An e-Fir can be filed only for cognisable offences like murder
rape dowry death kidnap etc. In these cases the police can make the arrest without the court order. In
non cognisable offences like assault cheating stalking etc, only a complaint can be filed online. It can
be later escalated into an FIR by the police after seeking permission from the magistrate. Some states
such as Tamil Nadu, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkand, Maharashtra, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, etc.

Uploading of FIR online:

Youth Bar Association of India Vs Union of India and Others8

FACTS: A Writ of Mandamus was filed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court of India, to
direct the Union of India and the States to upload each and every FIR registered in all the police
stations within the territory of India in the official website of the police of all States, as early as
possible, preferably within 24 hours from the time of registration.
Guide lines given by the court:
a. An accused is entitled to get a copy of the FIR at an earlier stage than as prescribed under Section
207 of the Cr.P.C.
b. An accused who has reasons to suspect that he has been roped in a criminal case and his name
may be finding place in a FIR can submit an application through his representative/agent/parokar for
grant of a certified copy before the concerned police officer or to the Superintendent of Police on
payment of such fee which is payable for obtaining such a copy from the Court. On such application
being made, the copy shall be supplied within twenty-four hours.
c. Once the FIR is forwarded by the police station to the concerned Magistrate or any Special Judge,
on an application being filed for certified copy on behalf of the accused, the same shall be given by
the Court concerned within two working days. The aforesaid direction has nothing to do with the
statutory mandate inhered under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.
d. The copies of the FIRs, unless the offence is sensitive in nature, like sexual offences, offences
pertaining to insurgency, terrorism and of that category, offences under POCSO Act and such other
offences, should be uploaded on the police website, and if there is no such website, on the official
website of the State Government, within twenty-four hours of the registration of the First
Information Report so that the accused or any person connected with the same can download the FIR
and file appropriate application before the Court as per law for redressal of his grievances. It may be
8
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.68 OF 2016

12
clarified here that in case there is connectivity problems due to geographical location or there is some
other unavoidable difficulty, the time can be extended up to forty-eight hours. The said 48 hours can
be extended maximum up to 72 hours and it is only relatable to connectivity problems due to
geographical location.
e. The decision not to upload the copy of the FIR on the website shall not be taken by an officer
below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or any person holding equivalent post. In case,
the States where District Magistrate has a role, he may also assume the said authority. A decision
taken by the concerned police officer or the District Magistrate shall be duly communicated to the
concerned jurisdictional Magistrate.
f. The word 'sensitive' apart from the other aspects which may be thought of being sensitive by the
competent authority as stated hereinbefore would also include concept of privacy regard being had to
the nature of the FIR. The examples given with regard to the sensitive cases are absolutely
illustrative and are not exhaustive.
g. If an FIR is not uploaded, needless to say, it shall not enure per se a ground to obtain the benefit
under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
h. In case a copy of the FIR is not provided on the ground of sensitive nature of the case, a person
grieved by the said action, after disclosing his identity, can submit a representation to the
Superintendent of Police or any person holding the equivalent post in the State. The Superintendent
of Police shall constitute a committee of three officers which shall deal with the said grievance. As
far as the Metropolitan cities are concerned, where Commissioner is there, if a representation is
submitted to the Commissioner of Police who shall constitute a committee of three officers. The
committee so constituted shall deal with the grievance within three days from the date of receipt of
the representation and communicate it to the grieved person.
i. The competent authority referred to hereinabove shall constitute the committee, as directed herein-
above, within eight weeks from today.
j. In cases wherein decisions have been taken not to give copies of the FIR regard being had to the
sensitive nature of the case, it will be open to the accused/his authorized representative/parokar to
file an application for grant of certified copy before the Court to which the FIR has been sent and the
same shall be provided in quite promptitude by the concerned Court not beyond three days of the
submission of the application.

13
 EVIDENCIARY VALUE OF FIR
It is well settled law that a first information report is not substantive evidence, that is to say, it is not
evidence of the facts which it mentions. However, its importance as conveying the earliest
information regarding the occurrence cannot be doubted. Though the FIR is not a substantive piece
of evidence but it can be used to corroborate the statement of the maker under Section 157, Evidence
Act or to contradict the maker thereof under Section 145, Evidence Act or to show that the
implication of the accused was not an after-thought or as one of the res gestae or for being tendered
in a proper case under Section 32 (1) of the Evidence Act or as part of the informant’s conduct under
Section 8 of the Evidence Act. It cannot be used as evidence against the maker at the trial if he
himself becomes an accused, not to corroborate or contradict other witnesses. Where the FIR is used
as an admission against the maker thereof, it has to be taken as a whole and not in part. It would not
be permissible to take a part of it and to reject the rest. Moreover it can be used to corroborate the
statements of eye-witnesses.
Whenever there is a contradiction between the statement in the FIR and the evidence of the
informant. The FIR to that extend be invalid, but not the whole FIR9. Variance with regard to the FIR
and case for which accused has been committed, the case will be thrown as unreliable. In Tahsildar v
State10, where the FIR is not the product of brain of an illiterate and inexperienced rustic in whose
case there may be a legitimate excuse of confusion or forgetfulness or incapacity to distinguish
between material and immaterial facts, but was prepared by an experienced police officer who had
personal knowledge of all the facts, in such case prosecution cannot take shelter behind the plea of
confusion or forgetfulness or lack of intelligence. Ordinarily FIR is used as a corroborative piece of
evidence but in certain cases it has been regarded as a part of res gestae and the evidence of
witnesses other than the first informant has also been sought to be corroborated or contradicted by
it11. As in Dharma Rama Bhagare v State of Maharastra 12, where the FIR was lodged by the last
surviving member of the family and his statement was in contradiction with FIR, it was held by the
Apex court that the Prosecution cannot be thrown out on the mere ground that in the FIR an
altogether different version was given by the informant. Discrepancies in the FIR and evidences are
not always fatal. Where the FIR showed beating by four persons but the evidence showed that only
two beat out of four, held such a discrepancy would not throw doubt if the evidence is otherwise
substantially true. Evidence of the accused cannot be rejected merely for his failure to mention

9
State v Kartar Singh, 1958 Cr LJ 129
10
1958 Cr LJ 424
11
State v. Anil Ranjan Dutt, 1952 Cr.L.J. 1154
12
(1973) 1 SCC 537

14
names of some of the accused in the FIR with all minute details of the incident. 13 It is also held in
many cases that FIR is not an encyclopedia, mere non-mentioning of names of witnesses or the name
of the accused is not fatal and at the same time it need not require to have every particular details in
it.

13
Eqbal v State, AIR 1987 SC 923

15
 REFUSAL FOR LODGING FIR
The commission of a cognizable offence forms a strong foundation of a valid criminal prosecution
and it empowers the police to investigate into the commission of the said offence in accordance with
the provisions of Chapter XII of the CrPC. But refusal to register an FIR can have wider
ramifications.26 As it has been already stated above that the FIR is not a substantive evidence,
however it cannot be denied that it has its own probative value and unexplained delay in lodging the
FIR can be fatal to the prosecution case. One of the reasons for delay may be due to refusal by a
police officer to register an FIR. Section 154 (1), CrPC no doubt leaves no option but to register an
FIR on the receipt of an information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence. As the Apex
Court in the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 14, held that at the stage of registration of a crime or the
case, on the basis of information disclosing a cognizable offence in compliance of the mandate of
Section 154, CrPC, the concerned police officer cannot embark upon an inquiry as to whether
information laid by the informant is reliable and genuine and to refuse registration of a case on that
ground. It is, therefore manifestly clear that if any information disclosing cognizable offence is laid
before a police officer incharge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1)
CrPC the said officer has no other option except to enter the substance therof in the prescribed form,
that is to say to register a case on the basis of such information.
The case of Abhay Nath Dubey v. State of Delhi 15 is one of the examples of police high-handedness.
The facts of the case were that the petitioner’s son died in mysterious circumstances, but an FIR was
not registered. Thereafter the petitioner approached the HON’BLE High Court, which directed to
treat the writ petition as a complaint and enquire into the same as per law. The police conducted a
full-fledged inquiry and found no substance in the said allegations of the petitioner. Aggrieved by
non-reguistration of FIR, the petitioner again approached the High Court. Allowing the writ petition
the Hon’ble High Court held, “the position that emerges and which is reiterated is that Section 154
casts a statutory obligation on the officer to enter the substance of information laid before him
disclosing commission of a cognizable offence in the prescribed form or book and to register an FIR.
He may conduct some inquiry if he finds the information and allegations contained in the
complaint/report indefinite, uncertain and vague raising doubts on the commission of cognizable
offence. But where such offence was prima facie disclosed and he had no option but to embark on
full-fledged inquiry too ascertain the genuiness or reliability of such information and allegation and
draw conclusions and render the investigation redundant and to refuse registration of an FIR. He
would be breaching the mandate of Section 154(1) thereby”.

14
1992 SCC (Cri) 426
15
 99 (2002) DLT 114

16
In Polavarapu Jagadiswararao v. Kondapaturi Venkateswarlu16, wherein it is held, “on receipt of a
complaint under S. 200, Cr.P.C., the Magistrate shall record the sworn statements of the complainant
and the witnesses, if any, present and (i) may take cognizance of the offence under S. 190(1)(a) and
issue process, or (ii) postpone the issue of process under S. 202 and (a) inquire into the case himself
or (b) direct investigation by police. Thus, the discretion under S. 202, Cr.P.C., lies with the
Magistrate either to inquire into the case himself or direct investigation by the police. It is also open
to the Magistrate to issue or postpone issue of process. While exercising his discretion, the
Magistrate scrutinises the complaint, the sworn statement of the complainant and also of those
recorded from the witnesses, if any, and then arrives at a decision as to whether to take cognizance of
the offence under S. 190(1)(a) or to postpone issue of process under S. 202, Cr.P.C. or to refer the
case to the police under S. 156(3), Cr.P.C. for investigation. It is only in case of deciding that the
material is not sufficient to take cognizance of the offence he may refer the matter to the police under
S. 156(3) for purposes of investigation. Therefore, when once the Magistrate after scrutinising the
complaint, the sworn statements and other material comes to the conclusion that he can take
cognizance of the offence, there is no need to have a resort to S. 156(3).”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in D. Lakshaminarayana v. V. Narayana 17, after comparing the
relevant provisions of the 1898 Code and the 1973 Code, it was held as follows “It is well settled that
when a Magistrate receives a complaint, he is not bound to take cognizance if the facts alleged in the
complaint, disclose the commission of an offence. This is clear from the use of the words ‘may take
cognizance’ which in the context in which they occur cannot be equated with ‘must take
cognizance’. The word ‘may’ gives a discretion to the Magistrate in the matter. If on a reading of the
complaint he finds that the allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and the forwarding of
the complaint to the police for investigation under S. 156(3) will be conclusive to justice and save the
valuable time to the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a matter which was primarily the
duty of the police to investigate, he will be justified in adopting that course as an alternative to taking
cognizance of the offence, himself.
Section 156(3) occurs in Chapter XII-‘Information to the Police and their powers to investigation’;
while Section 202 is in Chapter XV-‘Of complaints to Magistrate’. The power to order police
investigation under S. 156(3) is different from the power to direct investigation conferred by Section
202(1). The two operate in distinct spheres at different stages. The first is exercisable at the pre-
cognizance stage, the second at the post-cognizance stage when the Magistrate is in session of the
case. That is to say in the case of a complaint regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, the

16
1991 CriLJ 1419
17
1976 AIR 1672

17
power under Section 156(3) can be invoked by the Magistrate before he takes cognizance of the
offence under S. 190(1)(a). But if he once takes such cognizance and embarks upon the procedure
embodied in Chapter XV, he is not competent to switch back to the pre-cognizance stage and avail of
Section 156(3). It may be noted further that an order made under sub-section (3) of Section 156, is in
the nature of a peremptory reminder or intimation to the police to exercise their plenary powers of
investigation under Section 156(1). Such an investigation embraces the entire continuous process
which begins with the collection of evidence under Section 156 and ends with a report or chargesheet
under section 173. On the other hand, Section 202 comes in at a stage when some evidence has been
collected by the Magistrate in proceedings under Chapter XV, but the same is deemed insufficient to
take a decision as to the next step in the prescribed procedure. In such a situation, the Magistrate is
empowered under section 202 to direct, within the limits circumscribed by that section, an
investigation ‘for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding.’
Thus the object of an investigation under section 202 is not to initiate a fresh case on police report
but to assist the Magistrate in completing proceedings already instituted upon a complaint before
him.”

18
 DELAY IN LODGING OF FIR

Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all its vivid details gives an
assurance regarding its true version. In case, there is some delay in filing the FIR, the complainant
must give explanation for the same. Undoubtedly, delay in loadging the FIR does not make the
complainant’s case improbable when such delay is properly explained. However, deliberate delay in
lodging the complaint may prove to be fatal.
In such cases the Court has to carefully examine the facts before it, for the reason, that the
complainant party may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with mala fide
intentions or with ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance.. In such a case, where an FIR is lodged
clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and to put the
other party in long criminal proceedings, the court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the
process of law

Delay in lodging of FIR of three types :

1) Delay in lodging first information report by informant

2) Delay in recording first information report by the officer in charge of the police station
3) Delay in dispatching the first information report to the magistrate

Delay in lodging FIR by informant

FIR is the contemporaneous record containing a spontaneous narration of the crime by the maker
thereof before his memory fades or before he has time and opportunity to embellish or to introduce
facts as a result of confabulation (gossip) and reflection.18
In Indra Pal Singh V.State of U.P 19 the honorable Supreme Court decided that The occurrence took
place at about 8.30 p.m. near village in which the accused allegedly, fired gun shots at deceased and
FIR of occurrence was lodged at about 6.15 a.m. on the following morning at Police Station which is
situated at a distance of about 15 Km. from place of occurrence. The father of deceased has given
explanation that due to fear from the accused and non-availability of conveyance, he could not
promptly go to the police station to lodge FIR of the occurrence. He stated that after the murder of
deceased, he with the help of his co-villagers took the dead body of his son from the place of
occurrence to his house and since they were all waiting and grief stricken he got the report of the
occurrence scribed by his second son at about 3.00 a.m. on the following morning and then at about
18
The Delhi Law Times, 2003, Vol. CII, Journal Section(JS) 8
19
120 AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 958.

19
4.00 a.m. he proceeded to the police station, and handed over the written report to the police official
present there. In these circumstances, the explanation offered by the information for not lodging the
FIR soon after the occurrence, was quite satisfactory and convincing and there was no deliberate I
delay on his part in reporting the crime to police. Therefore, FIR would not be liable to be rejected
on ground of delay in lodging 8 a.m.
In State of Rajasthan V. Om Prakash20 the honorable Supreme Court decided that there was delay
of nearly 26 hours in lodging the FIR. The offence is alleged to have taken place at about 9 a.m. The
FIR was registered at about 11.30 a.m. on the next day. It was contended by the respondent that this
delay had assumed importance and was fatal particularly when the brother of the prosecution Mam
Raj (PW-6) was admittedly at the house. The delay, according to the council resulted in giving
wrong information.
In State of Haryana v. Ram Kishan 21, it was held that murder of five persons at night time,
complaint lodged with police at dawn, Complainant did not leave the house out offear. Explanation
for delay was held reasonable. Reasonable delay is always to be excused as has been decided by the
Apex Court in many cases, and in codified laws no where time have been mentioned, but it is to be
written within reasonable time period.

Delay in rape cases

In these cases it is not only related with the victim but also related with the person of the family of
the victim. Many times due to shame and family honor they do not contact to the police immediately
and delay causes weaken the prosecution case.
In Harpal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh22 it was held that “Delay of 10 days in lodging the
first information report stands reasonably explained when the prosecution stated that as honour of the
family was involved, its members had to decide whether to take the matter to the Court or no. It is
not uncommon that such consideration delays action on the part of the near relation of a young girl
who has been raped.
Delay in lodging of fir by officer incharge
FIR is to be written as soon as possible, some times officer-in-charge of the police station escape
from this essential job because after registration of the case they have to further inquire the case and
by this reason they can not escape from their duty. Sec. 154 Cr.P.C. mandates the officer-in-charge
of police station to record first information report as and when he receives information to a

20
AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 2235 para 9.
21
2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 1 (P&H) (DB)
22
AIR 1981 SC 361; 1981 Cr.L.J.P. 1

20
commission of cognizable offence. There should not be any delay on the part of the officer-in-charge
of police station in recording first information and registering the case upon it. Delay in registration
of FIR renders case to the prosecution suspicious. Any explanation given by the police officer is not
unbelievable.
In State of Maharashtra V. Prakash Sakha Vasave & Ors23 the honorable Supreme Court decided
that So far as the delay in lodging the First Information Report is concerned, it has been accepted that
the informant went to the wrong police station and when he was directed to go to Navapur Police
Station, he went there and lodged the FIR. That clearly explains the delay. Delay in filing F.I.R. is,
therefore, not fatal. In the ultimate analysis, High Court was not justified in directing acquittal of A-l
and A-2. However, so far as A-3 is concerned, the High Court has indicated sufficient reasons for
holding him not guilty. Same needs no interference. But the reasons indicated for directing acquittal
of A-l and A-2 are not justified. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of High Court so far as their
acquittal is concerning. But considering the facts of the case, it is apparent that the accused persons
were annoyed with the deceased because of his having illicit relationship with another lady while his
wife was alive. The case does not fall to the rarest of rare category. The appropriate sentence would
be life imprisonment. The State’s appeal is allowed the extent indicated above. Respondents 1 and 2
and directed to surrender to custody forthwith to serve the remainder of sentence. It is the
established principal that if a cognizable offence occurs and the police station is different from
the having jurisdiction, report is to be written and must be sent to the concerned police station.
Delay in dispatching the FIR to the magistrate
Therefore, it is the duty of the officer-in-charge of a police station to send the FIR immediately
without any delay to the Magistrate concerned. If there is any delay in sending the FIR to the
Magistrate, FIR will become doubtful. If report is received by a Magistrate lately, it can give rise to
an inference that FIR was not lodged at that time. But, prosecution can offer satisfactory explanation
for the delay in dispatching or receipt of FIR by the concerned Magistrate. The prosecution has to
lead evidence in this regard. To avoid all these things, it is better for the officer in-charge of a police
station to send FIR forthwith after registering.

23
AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 1636 para 6

21
 QUASHING OF AN FIR
Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr24
The High Court observed that it had been given "a fair idea" about the modus operandi adopted by
the Appellants for grabbing the land, in the course of which they had opened bogus bank accounts.
The High Court held that the case involves extortion, forgery and conspiracy and all the Appellants
have acted as a team. Hence, in the view of the High Court, it was not in the interest of society at
large to accept the settlement and quash the FIR. The High Court held that the charges are of a
serious nature and the activities of the appellants render them a potential threat to society. On this
ground, the prayer to quash the First Information Report was rejected by the High Court.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court after discussing various precedents on the subject summarized the
following broad principles in relation to Section 482 for quashing FIRs.

i. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the
process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new
powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;
ii. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a
criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender
and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of
compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed
by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to
quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
iii. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends
of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;
iv. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be
exercised;

a. to secure the ends of justice or

b. to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;
v. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the
ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts

24
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1723 OF 2017

22
 and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be
formulated;
vi. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute
has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the
offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder,
rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the
victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but
have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is
founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious
offences;
vii. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an
overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in
so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;
viii. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile,
partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate
situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;
ix. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the
compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the
continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
x. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above.
Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have
implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The
High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an
activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act
complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.

Further, it has been observed heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences
such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of
the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a
serious impact upon society.

23
Conclusion:

In the above project the Object and importance of first investigation report, the procedure followed
in lodging of an FIR, the value of the evidence in an FIR, in case of refusal of lodging an FIR or
vague information. what happens when lodging of an FIR is delayed. Filing of an e FIR and when
can an FIR be quashed is been discussed with case laws is being discussed with supporting case
laws.

24