Jamshed et al. International Journal of Institutional & Industrial Research ISSN: 2456-1274, Vol.

1,
Issue 3, September-December 2016, pp. 21-25

First Information Report (F.I.R.): A

Critical Study
Jamshed
Assistant Professor, Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi
Abstract: To start any examination, it is very clear that the police need to realize that an offence has been submitted.
This can be conceivable on the off chance that somebody approaches the police headquarters and gives the points of
interest of the offense conferred. This is frequently called as the First Information Report (so, FIR) and has been
pondered under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 (hereinafter alluded to as "Cr.P.C."). The main
data report is the data recorded under Section 154 identifying with the commission of a cognizable offense on which the
examination is initiated. FIR gets the criminal law framework under way. FIR, notwithstanding, require not be all
encompassing. It require not contain all points of interest of the episode described in that. The source is not required to
give all the minutest subtle elements of commission of wrongdoing. FIR must be held up at the soonest in purpose of time .
Keywords: F.I.R..

1. Introduction 3. It shall be signed by the person giving it, and

the substance thereof shall be entered in a book
F.I.R. is a report relating to the commission of a to be kept by such officer in such form as the
cognizable offence given to the police and recorded by Stete Government may prescribe in this behalf
it under Section 154, CrPC. 1 It is the earliest report and
made to the police officer with a view to his taking
action.2 In fact, it is an information given to a police 4. A copy of the information as recorded under
officer by an informant on which the investigation is sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of
commenced.3 cost, to the informant.

Requirements or Contents of FIR 2. Object and Importance of F.I.R.

The condition which is sine qua non for recording a The F.I.R. is the most important piece of corroborative
First Information Report is that there must be evidence on which the entire structure of a prosecution
information and that information must disclose a case is built up. It is in the nature of foundation of a
cognizable offence. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that building. The whole object of FIR is to obtain early
if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is information of alleged criminal activity, to record the
laid before an officer-in-charge of a police station circumastances before there is time for them to be
satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) the said forgotten or embellished. 4 In the words of Supreme
police officer has no other option except to enter the Court, “the object of a first information report from the
substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law
to register a case on the basis of such information. The in motion. From the point of view of investigating
parliament has, in order to safeguard the authenticity of authorities it is to obtain information about the alleged
the version made by informant at the earliest point of criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps
time, without giving any room for any complaint of for tracing and bringing to book the guilty party” 5.
tampering with it and also to protect it from any
subsequent variations or additions, introduced sub- It was observed by the Court in Mohan Lal v. State 6
section (2) to Section 154, CrPC. that, “the principal object of the first information report
is only to make a complaint to the police to set the
Section 154 (1) and (2), CrPC provides the following criminal law in motion. Its secondary though equally
requirements or mode of registering FIR: important object is to obtain early information of an
alleged criminal activity to record the circumstances
1. Every information relating to the commission before there is time for such circumstances to be
of a cognizable offence, shall be reduced in forgotten or embellished”. Further it has been held in
writing by the officer-in-charge of the police Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed7 that Section 154 has
station; three-fold objective:

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

4
Sessions Trial pg. 19.
1 5
Apren v. State, AIR 1973 SC 1. Hasib v. State of Bihar AIR 1972 SC 283.
2 6
Soma v. State, AIR 1975 SC 1453. AIR 1961 Raj. 24.
3 7
State v. Rusy, AIR 1960 SC 391. AIR 1945 PC 18.

© 2016 IJIIR All Rights Reserved page- 21-

 Jamshed et al. International Journal of Institutional & Industrial Research ISSN: 2456-1274, Vol. 1,
Issue 3, September-December 2016, pp. 21-25

Firstly, to inform the Magistrate of the District and the to reject the rest. 13 Moreover it can be used to
District Superintendent of Police who are responsible corroborate the statements of eye-witnesses.14
for the peace and safety of the district.
Other important points to be noted here so far as the
Secondly, to make known to the Judicial officers before evidentiary value of the FIR is concerned are:
whom the case is ultimately tried what are the material
facts on which investigation is commenced; and  The inconsistency between the statements in
the FIR and the evidence of the informant at
Thirdly, to safeguard against subsequent forgetfulness the trial would discredit the evidence of the
and embellishment on part of the informant about the informant to that extent but does not make the
incident. statement in FIR the evidence upon the matter
in the case.15
It is valuable document which throws much light on the
state of affairs which were known at the time of its  When there is a complete variance between the
making at least to the persons making it. Consequently, FIR and the case for which the accused has
if at the trial a story is given which differs in material been committed, the case will be thrown out as
particulars from the one given in the first report, it has unreliable.16
always been treated with great suspicion. Its importance
lies in the fact that it si a statement which is made soon  Where the FIR is not the product of the brain
after the occurrence of when memory is fresh and there of an illiterate and inexperienced rustic in
is want of opportunity for successful fabrication. The whose case there may be a legitimate excuse of
implication is that once the prosecution case is put in confusion or forgetfulness or incapacity to
the FIR, opportunities for improving it are considerably distinguish between material and immaterial
reduced because any prosecution case that may be facts, but was prepared by an experienced
subsequently set up can be checked in the light of the police officer who had personal knowledge of
first report particularly when it is made by the all the facts, in such case prosecution cannot
complainant himself. It also shows on what materials take shelter behind the plea of confusion or
the investigation commenced and what was the story forgetfulness or lack of intelligence. 17
then told.8
 Ordinarily speaking, the FIR can be used for
3. Evidentiary Value of First Information Report: corroborating only the maker therof. In certain
cases it has been regarded as a part of res
It is well settled law that a first information report is not gestae and the evidence of witnesses other
substantive evidence, that is to say, it is not evidence of than the person who lodged the FIR has also
the facts which it mentions.9 However, its importance as been sought to be corroborated or contradicted
conveying the earliest information regarding the by it.18
occurrence cannot be doubted.10 Though the FIR is not
 Prosecution cannot be thrown out on the mere
a substantive piece of evidence but it can be used to
ground that in the FIR an altogether different
corroborate the statement of the maker under Section
version aws given by the informant.19
157, Evidence Act or to contradict the maker thereof
under Section 145, Evidence Act or to show that the  Discrepancies in the FIR and evidences are not
implication of the accused was not an after-thought or always fatlal. Where the FIR showed beating
as one of the res gestae or for being tendered in a proper by four persons but the evidence showed that
case under Section 32 (1) of the Evidence Act or as part only two beat out of four, held such a
of the informant’s conduct under Section 8 of the discrepancy would not throw doubt if the
Evidence Act. 11 It cannot be used as evidence against evidence is otherwise substantially true.20
the maker at the trial if he himself becomes an accused,
not to corroborate or contradict other witnesses. 12  Evidence of the accused cannot be rejected
Where the FIR is used as an admission against the merely for his failure to mention names of
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
13
State v. Kartar Singh, 1958 Cr.L.J. 129.
14
Abdul Gani v. State, 1954 Cr.L.J. 323.
15
Narayan v. State, 1953 CrL.J. (Mad) 610.
8 16
Mahendra Pal v. State, 1955 Cr. L.J. 892. Narayan Reddy v. State, 1953 Cr.L.J. 29.
9 17
State of Assam v. U.N. Rajkhowa, 1972 Cr.L.J. 354. Tahsildar v. State, 1958 Cr.L.J. 424.
10 18
R.V. Kelkar’s, Criminal Procedure Code, 126 (Eastern State v. Anil Ranjan Dutt, 1952 Cr.L.J. 1154.
Book Company, Lucknow, 5th edn., 2008). 19
Dharma Rama Bhagare v. State of Maharashtra,
11
Balaka Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1975 SC 1962. (1973) 1 SCC 537.
12 20
Nisar Ali v. State, 1975 Cr.L.J. 550. D.V. Reddy v. State of A.P., (1973) 3 SCC 89.

© 2016 IJIIR All Rights Reserved page- 22-

 Jamshed et al. International Journal of Institutional & Industrial Research ISSN: 2456-1274, Vol. 1,
Issue 3, September-December 2016, pp. 21-25

some of the accused in the FIR with all minute question. There are variety of circumstances which a
details of the incident.21 court has to keep in mind in order to decide on the
question of promptness or otherwise as to the lodging of
 The FIR not being an encyclopedia, mere non- the first report, viz., the condition of the injured,
mentioning of names of some witnesses therin, distance between the police station and the place of
who were not eye-witness, is not fatal to the occurrence, means of communication, ignorance on
prosecution case.22 account of rustic simplicity, fear of miscreants, etc.
etc.25 Now we may discuss here some of the relevant
cases involving delay in filing of FIR and how the
courts have dealt with this question. For convenience
4. Delay in Lodging of FIR: Judicial Trend the judicial trend in this regard may be studied by
dividing various cases into different categories:
FIR attaches to itself special significance. It is the
earliest version of the crime on the basis of which 5. Refusal to Register an FIR
investigation commences. As such, it is the
contemporaneous record containing a spontaneous The registration of an FIR under Section 154(1) CrPC
narration of the crime by the maker thereof before his regarding the commission of a cognizable offence forms
memory fades or before he has time and opportunity to a strong foundation of avalid criminal prosecution and it
embellish or to introduce facts as a result of empowers the police to investigate into the commission
confabulation and reflection. That is why, where there is of the said offence in accordance with the provisions of
any undue delay in lodging the FIR, reasonable Chapter XII of the CrPC. But refusal to register an FIR
explanation should be elicited from the informant and can have wider ramifications.26 As it has been already
incorporated in the FIR. Unexplained delay deprives the stated above that the FIR is not a substantive evidence,
report of the advantage of spontaneity. 23 Criminal courts however it cannot be denied that it has its own probative
attach great importance to the lodging of prompt FIR value and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR can be
because the same greatly diminishes the chances of fatal to the prosecution case. One of the reasons for
false implication of accused as well as that of informant delay may be due to refusal by a police officer to
being tutored.24 register an FIR. Section 154 (1), CrPC no doubt leaves
no option but to register an FIR on the receipt of an
Undue or unreasonable delay also incurs the danger of information regarding the commission of a cognizable
the FIR being tainted with afterthought concoctions or offence. As the Apex Court in the State of Haryana v.
being distorted with coloured version, as a result of Bhajan Lal27, held that at the stage of registration of a
deliberation or consultation. Dealy in making the report crime or the case, on the basis of information disclosing
is suspicious circumstance which puts the court on its a cognizable offence in compliance of the mandate of
guard to scrutinize the evidence with great caution. Section 154, CrPC, the concerned police officer cannot
embark upon an inquiry as to whether information laid
Delay in lodging FIR can be of three types:
by the informant is reliable and genuine and to refuse
(1) Delay in lodging First Information Report by registration of a case on that ground. It is, therefore
informant; manifestly clear that if any information disclosing
cognizable offence is laid before a police officer
(2) Delay in recording First Information Report by the incharge of a police station satisfying the requirements
officer-in-charge of the police station; (discussed in of Section 154(1) CrPC the said officer has no other
detail below). option except to enter the substance therof in the
prescribed form, that is to say to register a case on the
(3) Delay in dispatching the First Information Report to basis of such information.
the Magistrate.
Now we may proceed to examine few reported cases of
As to what constitutes delay in lodging of FIR is a deliberate refusal to register an FIR on pretext or the
question of fact depending upon the peculiar other and the case of Mohindro v. State of Punjab28 is
circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be one of such cases. In the said case, the apex court taking
laid down to determine as to which information is a serious note of the refusal to register an FIR on the
prompt and which report is delayed. Distance between a ground of having conducted an inquiry, held, “though
police station and the scene of occurrence is not the the learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab
only factor to be considered in determining the stated that there had been an inquiry we fail to

21 25
Eqbal v. State, AIR 1987 SC 923. Supra note 14.
22 26
State v. Aru Pradhan, 1958 Cr.L.J. 161. Nirmal Chopra, “Refusal to Register an FIR”, Cr.L.J.
23
Sunetra Bose, “FIR & Investigation”, Cr.L.J. 30 (1991). 186 (2006).
24 27
Jagannath Narayana Nikam v. State of Maharashtra, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426.
28
1995 Cr.L.J. 795. 2001 Cr. L.J. 2587.

© 2016 IJIIR All Rights Reserved page- 23-

 Jamshed et al. International Journal of Institutional & Industrial Research ISSN: 2456-1274, Vol. 1,
Issue 3, September-December 2016, pp. 21-25

understand also how there can be inquiry without v. State of Delhi32, observed that the refusal to register
registering a criminal case”. an FIR is loaded with some serious consequences for
the informant/complainant. It seals the fate of his
The case of Abhay Nath Dubey v. State of Delhi 29 is complaint for good and deprives him of participation in
another example of police high-handedness. The facts the investigation, in which he could substantiate his
of the case were that the petitioner’s son died in allegations. It also deprives him of a second
mysterious circumstances, but an FIR was not opportunity to support his case before the magistrate in
registered. Thereafter the petitioner approached the the event police officer files a closure report in the FIR,
HON’BLE High Court, which directed to treat the writ which he is entitled to a report and to oppose such
petition as a complaint and enquire into the same as per closure report.
law. The police conducted a full-fledged inquiry and
found no substance in the said allegations of the The remedy in case of refusal by the police officer to
petitioner. Aggrieved by non-reguistration of FIR, the register the FIR is provided under Section 154 (3),
petitioner again approached the High Court. Allowing CrPC wherein aggreived person may send the substance
the writ petition the Hon’ble High Court held, “the of such information, in writing and by post, to the
position that emerges and which is reiterated is that Superintendent of Police concerned who if satisfied that
Section 154 casts a statutory obligation on the officer to such information discloses the commission of a
enter the substance of information laid before him cognizable offence, shall either investigate himself or
disclosing commisiion of a cognizable offence in the direct an investigation to be made by any police officer
prescribed form or book and to register an FIR. He may subordinate to him, in the manner provided by the
conduct some inquiry if he finds the information and Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an
allegations contained in the complaint/report indefinite, officer-in-charge of the police station in relation to that
uncertain and vague raising doubts on the commission offence.
of cognizable offence. But where such offence was
prima facie disclosed and he had no option but to Moreover, it can well be presumed that many cases of
embark on full-fledged inquiry too ascertain the refusal to register an FIR, do not reach a court of law
genuiness or reliability of such information and resulting that the offender goes scot free. Refusal to
allegation and draw conclusions and render the register an FIR by a police officer is a dereliction of
investigation redundant and to refuse registration of an duty on his part for which he can also be prosecuted
FIR. He would be breaching the mandate of Section under Section 221, IPC which provides punishment for
154(1) thereby”. a public servant intentionally omitting to apprehend or
keep in confinement any person charged with or liable
Recently the Supreme Court has had an occasion to to be apprehended for an offence or helps such person
comment upon the callous attitude of police in to escape. Though registration of an FIR empowers a
registering FIRs in Lalitha Kumari v. State of U.P. 30 police officer to apprehend the offender as per the
lamenting on the inaction of the police in tracing out a nature of the offence, the power to arrest under CrPC
missing a minor girl child, the court said: “it is a matter and refusal to register an FIR obviously results in such
of experience that inspite of law laid down by this court, offender being non-apprehendable but the fact that the
the police authorities concerned do not register FIRs, words ‘refusal to register an FIR’ have not been used in
unless some direction is given by the CJM or the High Section 221, IPC, a new provision should be included in
Court or this Court. In a large number of cases IPC specifically providing punishment in case where
investigations do not commence even after registration apolice officer refuses to register an FIR. 33
of FIRs. The court reteirated that directions should be
issued to the police to register FIR promptly and to give 7. High Court’s Power to quash the FIR
a copy to the complainants. If the police do not comply
with these instructions or initiate investigation, The High Court may in exercise of powers under
magistrate could initiate contempt proceedings.” Art.226, Constitution of India or under S.482 or Cr.P.C.
may interfere in proceedings relating to cognizable
6. Remedy offences to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However it has
The refusal to register an FIR results in serious been observed by the Supreme Court in Kurukshetra
consequences. It denies the complainant the right to get University v. State 34 that the High Court while
justice and also gives the offender an excercising the inherent power cannot quash the FIR
inspiration/opportunity to again commit a similar or and particularly when the police had not even
other offence.31 As the Delhi High Court in Abhay Nath commenced investigation and no proceedings are
pending in any court. However, when the allegations in

29 32
2002 (2) Chand Cri 354. Supra note 41.
30 33
(2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 17. Supra note 38.
31 34
Supra note 38 at p.188. AIR 1977 SC 229.

© 2016 IJIIR All Rights Reserved page- 24-

 Jamshed et al. International Journal of Institutional & Industrial Research ISSN: 2456-1274, Vol. 1,
Issue 3, September-December 2016, pp. 21-25

the FIR, even if they are taken on their face value and 8. Conclusion:
accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence
alleged it would be legitimate for the High Court to hold In this way we can say that the provision of FIR is very
that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process important in every case, so it must be scrutinized very
of the criminal court to be issued against the accused. 35 carefully and strict rules are to be made for the police
officers for registering the FIR
It has been reiterated by the Court in a number of cases
that the inherent power contemplated by Section 482, REFERENCES
CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings including FIR
has to be “excercised sparingly, carefully and with [1]. Muralidhan, S. "Rights of Victims in the
caution and only where such exercise is justified by the Indian Criminal Justice System." Journal of
tests laid down in the section itself”36. NHRC 2 (2003).
[2]. Dhar, Pannalal. Preventive Detention under
In a leading case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal 37, the Indian Constitution. Deep & Deep
following cases have been stated by the Supreme Court Publications, 1986.
wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 of [3]. Friendly, Henry J. "The Bill of Rights as a
the Constitution of India or inherent power under Code of Criminal Procedure." California Law
Section 487, CrPC can be excercised by the High Court Review 53.4 (1965): 929-956.
to prevent abuse of process of any court or to secure [4]. Kolsky, Elizabeth. "Codification and the rule
justice. of colonial difference: criminal procedure in
British India." Law and History Review 23.03
 Where the allegations made in the First (2005): 631-683.
Information Report or the complaint, even if [5]. Banerjee, Tapas Kumar. Background to Indian
they are taken at their face value and accepted Criminal Law. R. Cambray, 1963.
in their entirety do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out a case against the
accused.

 Where the allegations in the First Information

Report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code
except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of S.155(2) of the Code.

 Where the uncontroversial allegations made in

the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose
the commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused.

 Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not

constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code.

 Where the allegations made in the FIR or

complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.

35
R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866.
36
Pepsi Foods Ltd. V. Special Judicial Majistrate, (1998)
5 SCC 749.
37
1992 SCC (Cri) 426.

© 2016 IJIIR All Rights Reserved page- 25-