FIR

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

LATEST S.C JUDGEMENT
◦ Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12 November, 2013- WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 68
OF 2008

◦ S.C Held- The important issue which arises for consideration in the referred matter is whether “a police
officer is bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon receiving any information relating to
commission of a cognizable offence under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short
‘the Code’) or the police officer has the power to conduct a “preliminary inquiry” in order to test the
veracity of such information before registering the same?” it was held that registering an FIR was the
bounden duty of the police officer receiving the information of an cognizable offence.
LATEST H.C JUDGEMENT

◦ In a recent case taken up by the Supreme Court in the case of C.Kumaravel v.

The Director of Police & ors.,27th April 2019, the Madras H.C Court has
reiterated the important tenets pertaining to investigation by Magistrate under
Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. They are as under:
• That Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked in all
circumstances. It is not an alternative remedy to Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C but a
repository of inherent power.
• That normal course of remedy on a failure or refusal to record the information is
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure after due compliance of Section
154(3) of C rPC
• That a petition can be filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court only after
the completion of 15 days from the date of receipt of the information by the Station
House Officer. The Registry shall not receive any petition before the expiry of 15
days aforesaid.
• That no petition shall be entertained without exhausting the remedy under Section
154(3) of Cr PC
• That an informant can send substance of the information to the Superintendent of
Police on knowing the decision of the Station House Officer in not registering the
case and proceeding with the preliminary enquiry. After conducting the preliminary
enquiry, the Station House Officer’s decision in either registering the compliant or
closing it will have to be intimated to the informant immediately and in any case
not later than 7 days. Once such a decision is made, the informant cannot invoke
Section 482 Cr. P.C. as the remedy lies elsewhere.
• The directions issued by the Director General of Police in the circulars referred are
to be strictly complied with by all the Station House Officers.
• The affidavit to be filed shall contain particulars regarding the date of complaint,
receipt and the date of sending substances of the information to the superintendent
of Police under Section 154(3) of Cr PC and its receipt. The Registry shall not
number any petition without due compliance.
• That the Judicial Magistrates, while dealing the petitions under Sections 156(3) of
Cr PC are directed to keep in mind the narratives in Lalitha Kumari’s case with
specific reference to the cases, which might require a preliminary enquiry before
issuing a direction to investigate and after careful perusal of the complaint.
• That eschewing Section 156(3) of Cr PC is only on exceptional and rarest of rare
cases. Monstrosity of the offence, extreme official apathy and indifference, need to
answer the judicial conscience, and existence of hostile environment are few of the
factors to be borne in mind to bring a case under the rarest of rare one.
OBJECT AND SCOPE OF FIR
◦ The term F.I.R. or ‘first information report’ has not been defined by the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The report first recorded by the police relating to the commission of a cognizable
case is the first information report. It is a document of considerable importance, the object being
to show on what materials the investigation commenced and what was the story then told.
◦ The ingredients of the first information report are as follows:
◦ (1) It is an information which is given to the police officer;
◦ (2) Information must relate to a cognizable offence;
◦ (3) It is an information first in point of time;
◦ (4) It is on the basis of this information that investigation into the offence commences.
◦ Object of F.I.R.:
◦ The principal object of the first information report from the point of view of the information is to
set the criminal law in 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.
SCOPE
◦ The F.I.R. is usually made by the complainant or by someone on his behalf or the police
themselves recording an FIR, when a cognizable crime occurs and they are aware of it or made
aware of it.
◦ The general rule is that ordinarily the information about the offence committed is to be given to
the police station having territorial jurisdiction where the offence has been committed. But this
does not mean that it cannot be lodged elsewhere. The Supreme Court, in State of A.P v.
Punati Ramube, AIR 1993 SC 2644, has held that refusing to record the complaint was a
dereliction of duty on the part of the constable because any lack of territorial jurisdiction could
not have prevented the constable from recording information about the cognizable offence and
forwarding the same to the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which the crime
was said to have been committed.
scope
◦ In Hallu and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1974 AIR 1936, 1974 SCR (3) 652. it is held
that it is not the requirement of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which speaks of
an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence given to an officer-in-charge
of a police station that the report must be given by a person who has personal knowledge of the
incident and such a report cannot be refused to be treated as F.I.R. holding that it is based on
hearsay evidence.
◦ Golla Jalla Reddy & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 April, 1996- it has been held
that where oral complaint disclosing commission of a cognizable offence has been made and
police investigation has started on its basis and later on a second report is made in writing,
the written report has to be considered as statement under Section 161 of the Code and
not as F.I.R. and it cannot be used for corroboration of evidence of information.
scope
◦ A cryptic and anonymous telephone message which did not clearly specify a cognizable offence
cannot be treated as F.I.R. In Dasan v. State of Kerala,21 Feb, 1986, it is held that an
anonymous phone call relating to commission of an offence will not amount to F.I.R.
◦ Failure to mention the name of any assailant in the first information report would not be of any
consequence if the circumstances of the case justified the same.
◦ The mere omission of the name of the accused in the F.I.R. by the complainant is no ground to
brush aside his evidence where the F.I.R. covers broader aspect of the case, mere non-mention
of the name of the accused does not render the case doubtful
◦ . Merely because only some of the accused persons have been mentioned in the F.I.R. is no
ground to hold the F.I.R. as fabricated and concocted. When satisfactory explanation has been
given for the omission of the name of the accused in the F.I.R. the veracity of the prosecution
case cannot be doubted. An F.I.R. does not become defective for want of particulars such as
parentage, etc. of all or any of the accused persons.
scope
◦ Where the F.I.R. does not bear the signature/thumb impression of the informant and no
explanation is forthcoming, F.I.R. is to be rejected.
◦ In Animireddy Venkata Ramana & Others v. Public Prosecutor, to A.P, 5th March 2008,
Appeal (crl.) 917 of 2006, it was observed that when an information is received by the Officer-
in-Charge of a police station, he in terms of the provisions of the Code was expected to reach
the place of occurrence as early as possible. It was not necessary for him to take that step only
on the basis of a First Information Report.
◦ An information received in regard to commission of a cognizance offence is not required to be
preceded by a F.I.R. Duty of the State to protect the life of an injured as also an endeavour on
the part of the responsible police officer to reach the place of occurrence in a situation of this
nature is his implicit duty and responsibility.
scope
◦ In the FIR all the accused persons were named and overt acts on their part were also stated at
some length. Each and every detail of the incident was not necessary to be stated. A First
Information Report is not meant to be encyclopaedic. While considering the effect of some
omissions in the FIR on the part of the informant, a Court cannot fall to take into consideration
the probable physical and mental condition of the first informant.
◦ Once a First Information Report is found to be truthful, only because names of some accused
persons have been mentioned, against whom the prosecution was not able to establish its
case, the entire prosecution case would not be thrown away only on the basis thereof.
◦ Ram Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2019 SCC Online Chh 83 decided on 22-07-2019,
FIR, registered by the informant/ victim to be treaded as dying declaration if the person
dies after registering the FIR.
◦ Budha v. State of Odisha, 2019 SCC Online Ori 262, decided on 01-08-2019], delay in
lodging FIR in rape cases, cannot be used as a ground against prosecution case.