1. Ins. by Act 13 of 2013, s. 13 (w.e.f. 3-2-2013).
2. Subs. by Act 22 of 2018, s. 11, for “section 376A, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D” (w.e.f. 21-4-2018).

Introduction

FIR stands for First Information Report, which is the first information of a cognizable offence given to the police. A cognizable offence is one in which the police can arrest without a warrant. FIR is covered under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which lays down the procedure for recording the information.

Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in India outlines the procedure for recording information in cognizable cases. Here is a breakdown of the key points mentioned in the section:

1. Recording of Information:
   • If someone orally provides information about the commission of a cognizable offence to the officer in charge of a police station, the officer must reduce it to writing or direct someone to do so.
   • The written information should be read out to the informant and then signed by them.
   • The substance of the information should be entered in a book kept by the officer, known as the station diary or FIR diary. The form of the book is prescribed by the State Government.
2. Provision for Women:
   • If a woman gives information about offences such as sections 326A, 326B, 354, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D, 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376E, or 509 of the Indian Penal Code, the information must be recorded by a woman police officer or any woman officer.
3. Provision for Disabled Victims:
   • If a victim who is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled alleges an offence under sections 354, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D, 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB, 376E, or 509 of the Indian Penal Code, the information given by the victim should be recorded by a police officer.
   • The recording should take place at the residence of the person seeking to report the offence or at a convenient place chosen by the person.
   • The recording should be done in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as required.
   • The recording of such information should be videographed.
   • The police officer must ensure that the statement of the person is recorded by a Judicial Magistrate as soon as possible under clause (a) of sub-section (5A) of section 164.
4. Providing a Copy of the Information:
   • A copy of the recorded information should be given to the informant immediately and free of cost.
5. Remedies for Refusal to Record Information:
   • If an officer in charge of a police station refuses to record the information, the aggrieved person has the following options:
     • Send the substance of the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned, who may investigate the case or direct an investigation by a subordinate police officer.
     • Approach a superior police officer.
     • Approach a Magistrate under section 156(3) or section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
     • Approach the High Court under section 482 of the Code.

The purpose of the FIR (First Information Report) is to set the criminal law in motion and provide information about the alleged criminal activity to the investigating authorities. Prompt lodging of an FIR is encouraged to ensure the timely collection of accurate information before it is forgotten or manipulated.

Evidentiary Value of FIR

An FIR (First Information Report) is not considered substantive evidence in a criminal trial, but it holds its importance. Its significance can be explained in the following points:

(a) Corroborative Evidence: The FIR is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for corroborating the oral evidence presented during the trial.

(b) Cross-Examination: As the FIR is not considered substantive evidence, its cross-examination under Section 157 or 145 of the Indian Evidence Act is compulsory. If the person who made the first report or the person who wrote it is not produced as a witness, the FIR cannot be referred to as evidence.

(c) Record of Initial Information: Courts in India attach great importance to the careful and accurate record of the first information. The purpose of the FIR is to provide a record of the initial account of the occurrence.

(d) Corroboration and Impeachment: The FIR can be used to corroborate or impeach the testimony of the person lodging it under Sections 145, 157, and 158 of the Indian Evidence Act. It can also be used under Sections 32(1),  and 8 of the Evidence Act.

(e) Right to Obtain a Copy: An FIR is a public document, and the accused is entitled to receive a certified copy of it. Denying a copy would violate the principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution.

(f) Use for Corroboration: The FIR is a previous statement that can be proved by the prosecution to corroborate the first informant’s testimony and can be used by the defence to contradict the informant. However, it cannot be used to discredit any witness other than the first informant.

(g) Corroboration: The FIR can be used for corroboration under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(h) Admissibility as Dying Declaration: An FIR lodged by a person who subsequently dies, relating to the cause of their death, is admissible as a substantive piece of evidence under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act as a dying declaration.

(i) Inspection by District Magistrate: If an FIR is recorded in the “Station House Register” or General Diary, the District Magistrate has the authority to call for it and inspect such records.

(j) Limited to Cognizable Offenses: An FIR contains information relating only to cognizable offences, while reports of non-cognizable offences are recorded under Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Relevant Case Laws:

1. Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 773: In this case, it was held that an FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and can be used only to impeach the creditworthiness of the maker’s testimony, not to contradict or discredit other witnesses.
2. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 AIR 604, 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 335: The court held that an FIR can be used to corroborate the informant under Section 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict the informant under Section 145 when called as a witness during the trial.
3. Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225: It was held that an FIR can be used to establish relevant facts such as motive, preparation, opportunity, malice, or ill-will under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.
4. Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998) 4 SCC 517: The court ruled that an FIR cannot be used to fill gaps in the prosecution’s case or to improve its version.
5. Asharam & Anr. v. State of M.P., (2016) 1 SCC 1: The court emphasized that the evidentiary value of an FIR depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and no hard and fast rule can be laid down regarding its significance.

Delay in Filing FIR

The consequences of delay in filing an FIR can have significant impacts on the prosecution’s case. Unreasonable and unexplained delays can raise suspicion and allow room for the introduction of fabricated narratives by the prosecution. Failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay can cast doubt on the credibility of the FIR. However, there are circumstances where a delay in reporting can be justified with a satisfactory explanation.

Effects of delay in filing an FIR include:

1. Credibility and Consistency: The delay may affect the credibility and consistency of the informant and other witnesses, raising questions about the accuracy of their recollection of events.
2. Tampering with Evidence: The accused may take advantage of the delay to tamper with evidence or evade justice, making it more challenging for investigators to gather vital clues and establish the truth.
3. Hindrance to Investigation: The delay can hamper the investigation process, making it difficult for law enforcement agencies to collect evidence, locate witnesses, and reconstruct the sequence of events accurately.
4. Weakening the Prosecution: The delay may weaken the prosecution’s case, as memories fade and crucial evidence may become difficult to obtain or prove.
5. Acquittal or Reduced Sentence: In some cases, the delay in filing an FIR may lead to the acquittal of the accused or a reduction in the severity of the sentence, as it can create doubt about the prosecution’s case.

Here are some relevant case laws that address the issue of delay in filing an FIR:

1. Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972) 3 SCC 393: The Supreme Court held that the delay in lodging an FIR, by itself, is not sufficient grounds to doubt the prosecution’s case. It should be considered along with other circumstances and evidence on record.
2. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gian Chand (2001) 6 SCC 71: The Supreme Court emphasized that delay in filing an FIR is not always fatal to the prosecution’s case. Each case should be evaluated based on its unique facts and circumstances. The delay must be explained by cogent and convincing reasons.
3. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384: The Supreme Court ruled that delay in filing an FIR by a victim of sexual assault should not be used to discredit her testimony. Factors such as fear, shame, stigma, and trauma may deter immediate reporting. The court also highlighted that medical evidence is not the sole determinative factor in rape cases, and conviction can be based on the reliable and trustworthy testimony of the victim.

Types of FIR

Various types of FIR exist, classified based on the nature and source of information provided, including:

1. Regular FIR: This is the most common type of FIR and is registered when an individual reports information about a cognizable offence at a police station within the jurisdiction where the offence occurred.
2. Zero FIR: Zero FIR is a concept that allows for the registration of an FIR regardless of jurisdiction, with the subsequent transfer of the case to the appropriate police station where the offence occurred. The purpose of Zero FIR is to eliminate delays in investigation and prevent the police from refusing to register an FIR based on jurisdictional constraints. It falls under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which mandates the recording of information for any cognizable offence. In the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014), the Supreme Court emphasized the mandatory nature of FIR registration under section 154 of the CrPC. The court ruled that if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, no preliminary inquiry is permissible, and the police must register an FIR. The court also provided guidelines for police officers to follow when dealing with such situations, including the registration of Zero FIRs in cases where the place of occurrence is uncertain or outside their jurisdiction.
3. Counter FIR: A Counter FIR can be filed by the accused or their representative to counter the allegations made by the complainant in the original FIR. It serves as a response to the initial complaint.
4. NCR (Non-Cognizable Report): Although not categorized as an FIR, an NCR is a report that documents information related to a non-cognizable offence. Non-cognizable offences are those for which the police cannot arrest without a warrant. The police require permission from a magistrate to initiate an investigation into such offences.

These distinctions in FIR types help in streamlining the legal process and ensuring the appropriate handling of various offences based on their nature and circumstances.

Several landmark judgments have been pronounced by the Supreme Court of India regarding the filing and registration of FIRs under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Some of these judgments are:

• State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 AIR 604, 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 335: The Supreme Court provided guidelines for quashing FIRs under Article 226 of the Constitution. It stated that the High Court can use its power to quash FIRs in exceptional cases where the allegations do not constitute a cognizable offence or are absurd, vexatious, or malicious.
• Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1: The Supreme Court held that the registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the CrPC when the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The court emphasized that no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such cases. It also issued directions for the police to follow while dealing with such information.
• Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma, (2020) 10 SCC 259: The Supreme Court clarified that Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 does not replace the procedure for the investigation of offences under the CrPC. It held that the registration of an FIR under Section 154 of the CrPC is permissible for offences under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The court further stated that an inspector under the Act can arrest a person in connection with such offences.
• Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 409: The Supreme Court ruled that if a person’s FIR is not registered by the police station, they can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of the CrPC or file an application before a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The court discouraged filing a writ petition in such cases and emphasized the availability of other remedies under the CrPC.
• Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 287: The Supreme Court held that before entertaining an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, the Magistrate must ensure that the application is accompanied by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant, and the veracity of the allegations is verified. The court also highlighted that making false allegations in such an application can lead to prosecution for perjury.

These judgments have provided important guidance on the filing, registration, and handling of FIRs, ensuring adherence to the principles of justice and fairness in the criminal justice system.

Study Notes

Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) deals with non-cognizable cases and the investigation of such cases. Here are the key points to note:

1. Non-cognizable Offences: A non-cognizable offence refers to an offence for which a police officer does not have the authority to arrest without a warrant. These offences are considered more in the nature of private wrongs, and the collection of evidence and prosecution is usually initiated by a private citizen.
2. Procedure for Non-cognizable Cases: When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station regarding the commission of a non-cognizable offence within their jurisdiction, they are required to enter the substance of the information in a book known as the Non-Cognizable Report Diary (NCR Diary), as prescribed by the State Government. The informant is then referred to the Magistrate.
3. Investigation of Non-cognizable Cases: No police officer can investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate who has the power to try such cases or commit them for trial. Once a police officer receives such an order, they are empowered to exercise the same investigation powers (except the power to arrest without a warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station would have in a cognizable case.
4. Cognizable and Non-cognizable Offences in the Same Case: If a case involves two or more offences, with at least one being cognizable, the entire case is deemed to be a cognizable case. This means that the investigation and procedural requirements for cognizable offences will be followed, and the police officer will have the same powers as they would in a cognizable case, including the power to arrest and lodge an FIR.

Overall, Section 155 of the CrPC establishes the distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable offences and outlines the procedure to be followed in the investigation of non-cognizable cases. It ensures that non-cognizable offences are handled differently, with the involvement of a Magistrate and limited investigative powers for the police officer.

Relevant Case Laws

Sanjay Kumar Rai vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2021) 7 SCC 1: In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the magistrate possesses the authority to order an investigation under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in a non-cognizable case, even without recording the substance of the information in a book as required by Section 155(1) of the CrPC. The Court further determined that the magistrate can take cognizance of a non-cognizable offence based on the police report submitted subsequent to such investigation.

Mohd. Yousuf vs Smt. Afaq Jahan & Anr. (2006) 1 SCC 627: In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that the magistrate can order an investigation under Section 155(2) of the CrPC in a non-cognizable case only if satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. The Court emphasized that the magistrate does not have the authority to direct the police to register a First Information Report (FIR) in a non-cognizable case.