Law Reating to First Information Report

We have already discussed that registration of FIR is one of the modes of crime reporting.

This term is not defined under the Code. [Is it used in any of the provisons of the Code?]

Meaning of FIR:
The information given under sub-section (1) of section 154 of the Code is commonly/Popularly known as First
Information Report (FIR). It is the ‘information’ that is received first in point of time

In other words, FIR is a report giving information of the commission of a cognizable crime which may be made by the
victim or by any other person knowing about the commission of such an offence.

The registration of the FIR empowers the officer in-charge of the Police Station to commence investigation with respect to
the crime reported to him.

Object: Two fold object sought to be achieved by registreing the FIR:

“It has twin object- one, that the criminal process is set into motion and is well documented from the very start; and second,
that the earliest information received in relation to the commission of a cognizable offence is recorded so that there cannot be
any embellishment etc., later.” [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P, (2014) 2 SCC 1]
 Essential Ingredients of FIR
There are following essential ingredients of FIR under section 154:

1. Information: There must be information.

2. Cognizable Offence: That information must be related to commission of cognizable offence.

3. Information made to Officer in charge of a police station and woman police officer or any woman officer: It must be
made to the officer in charge of a police station.
Note: If the informant is the victim (woman) of acid attack, rape etc. then such information shall be recorded, by a woman
police officer or any woman officer. If the victim is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such
information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a
convenient place of such person’s choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be. The
recording of such information shall be videographed. [Inserted by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013; some changes
were made by the Crim. Law (Amendment) Act, 2018; For details read Proviso to Section 154(1)]

4. Oral or written: Such information may be given either orally or written form. If it is given orally to an officer in charge of a
police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant. [S. 154(1)]

5. Signature of informant: Every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing (oral information) as
aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it (informant), and [S. 154(1)]

6. Entering of substance in book: The substance the information shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such
form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. ‘General Diary’ has been prescribed for this purpose.
 Number of copies of FIR and Entering of its substance in ‘General Diary’

Every State has made its own rules/regulations to answer the issue of number of copies and mentioning substance of FIR in
'General Diary'.

Lets discuss Uttar Pradesh Police Regulation on this point:

According to Para 97 of this regulation FIR must be prepared in ‘triplicate’ (Three copies). Informant must sign all three copies
or if he cannot write he must put his thumb impression. Officer in charge of police station must sign and seal all three copies
also. These copies are distributed according to sections 157, 158 of Cr.P.C. and Para 97 Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations in
following manner -
(i) Original (First) Copy to Magistrate: According to section 157, officer in charge of police station empowered to investigate
under section 156 shall forthwith send a report of FIR to a Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance of such offence
upon a police report.
Original copy is sent through SP to Magistrate having jurisdiction. [Read Section 158 of CrPC]

(ii) Second Copy to ‘Informant’: Second copy shall be given to the informant free of cost.

(iii) Third Copy for Police Station: Third copy remains in book.
According to Para 99 of Uttar Pradesh Regulation as soon as information has been written in First Information Book, the
substance of FIR must be written in ‘General Diary’.

Note: Each FIR has a unique annual number given to it which is maintained in FIR book on an annual basis. To keep a strict
control and track over the registration of FIRs by the supervisory police officers and by the courts, wherever necessary.
In Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar (1997) 8 SCC 476, the Supreme Court has pointed out following procedure relating to F.I.R.:

“First, Registration of FIR is to be done in a book called ‘FIR book’ or ‘FIR Register’, and secondly, the gist of the FIR or the
substance of the FIR may also be mentioned simultaneously in the General Diary as mandated in the respective Police Act or
Rules, as the case may be, under the relevant State provisions.”

Q. Whether an entry in General Diary may be treated as FIR?

Contents of FIR

In the case of G. S. Naidu v. State of A.P. and Ors. (Dec. 15, 2003, SC) Hon’ble Justice Arijit Pasayat said, “The FIR is not
supposed to be an encyclopedia of the factors concerning the crime, yet there must be some definite information of the crime.”

In the case of Ravi Kumar v. State of Punjab (SC, 2005) Hon’ble Justice Arijit Pasayat said “It is not the requirement of law that
the minutest details be recorded in the FIR lodged immediately after the occurrence.”
Issue: Whether reasonableness or credibility of any information relating to cognizable offence is a condition precedent for
registration of an FIR.

Supreme Court discussed this issue in detail in Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana, 1992 Cri.LJ 527 (SC) and summed up the
discussion in the following words:

“The non qualification of the word "information" in Section 154(1) of the Code is for the reason that the police officer should
not refuse to record any information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence on the ground that he is not satisfied
with the reasonableness or credibility of the information. In other words, reasonableness or credibility of the said
information is not a condition precedent for the registration of a case.”

An officer in charge of police station cannot refuse to register the FIR on the ground that the information is not relevant or
credible. [See, Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2006) 2 SCC 667]

Therefore in the words of Supreme Court in Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, JT 2007(1) SC 89, it can failry be
concluded that “at the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence
in compliance with the mandate of Section 154(1) of the Code, the police officer concerned cannot embark upon an inquiry as
to whether the information laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the
ground that the information is not reliable or credible.”
 Kinds of FIR

FIR can be divided on the basis of informant or authorities (on whose information or direction FIR is registered) and relevant
statutory provisions. These classification are as follows:

A. Kinds of FIR on the Basis of Informant (including Police Authorities or Court)

Victim Accused? Third Person Police Authority (Suo Motto) Court

(S. 154) (S. 154) (S.154) (S. 157/ S.36) [S.156(3)/S.482(HC)]

B. Kinds of FIR on the Basis of Jurisdiction of Police Station

Jurisdictional FIR - S.154 Zero FIR S. 154 (Free Jurisdictional FIR)

Zero FIR: Zero FIR can be registered by any Officer in charge of Police Station even he has no jurisdiction for investigation of
the offence. In such FIR serial number is put Zero and such FIR is forwarded to competent investigating police station.

Q. Give some illustrative examples of registration of Zero FIR that you may have read on media plaforms.
Supreme Court on Kinds of FIR:

In the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. [2013(13) SCALE 559] Supreme Court said that the Code contemplates two kinds of
FIRs, namely; (i) FIR under section 154 (1) and (ii)FIR under section 157(1).

The duly signed FIR under Section 154(1) is by the informant to the concerned officer at the police station. The second kind of
FIR is one which is registered by the police itself on any information received or other than by way of an informant [under
Section 157(1)] and even this information has to be duly recorded and the copy should be sent to the Magistrate forthwith.

Territorial Jurisdictional of Police Station and FIR: Every police station has own territorial jurisdiction. However, section 154
does not say anything regarding territorial jurisdiction.
If cognizable offence is committed within territorial jurisdiction then FIR is registered and it contains date, time and place of
occurrence, serial number etc.
Issue: Whether telephonic information if reduced to writing, can be treated as F.I.R.

This issue has been answered by the Supreme Court in the following cases:

(i) In Ramsingh Bavaji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, (1994) 2 SCC 685, the Court has held thus:
“If the telephonic message is cryptic in nature and the officer in charge proceeds to the place of occurrence on the basis of that
information to find out the details of the nature of the offence itself, then it cannot be said that the information, which had
been received by him on telephone, shall be deemed to be First Information Report. The object and purpose of giving such
telephonic message is not to lodge the First Information Report, but to request the officer in charge of the police station to
reach the place of occurrence.”

“On the other hand, if the information given on telephone is not cryptic and on the basis of that information, the officer in
charge, is prima facie satisfied about the commission of a cognizable offence and he proceeds from the police station, after
recording such information, to investigate such offence then that piece of information will constitute F.I.R.” [Similar view shared
in State of A.P. v. V.V. Panduranga Rao, (2009) 15 SCC 2011].

(ii) In Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (1970) 2 SCC 113, the Supreme Court ruled that:
where an anonymous telephonic message neither discloses names of the accused nor the commission of a cognizable offence, it
cannot be treated as FIR. The mere fact that this information was the first in point of time does not by itself clothe it with the
character of First Information Report.

Issue: Whteher information received via social media platforms, if reduced in writing, can be treated as FIR
 Delay in lodging FIR and its Implication

Information under section 154 must be given at the earliest possible opportunity after the commission of the offence.
Prompt lodging of FIR presumes fairness in the administration of criminal justice.

Immediate lodging of FIR facilitates swift investigation and sometimes even prevention of the crime and hence effectuates
the regime of law. It also leads to less manipulation in criminal cases and lessens incidents of ante-dates FIR or deliberately
delayed FIR
Note: In Lalita Kumari Case, Supreme Court discussed advantages of immediate registration of FIR which we have aready
discussed while answering the question on importance of reporting of cimes.
Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought and much deliberation.

Issue: Whether delay per se in lodging an FIR effect credibility of FIR and is a ground to disbelieve prosecution story

Delay in lodging FIR shall not affect credibility of FIR and also is not a ground to disbelieve prosecution case, if there are
justified reasons to explain such delay. In case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gyan Chand (2001) Supreme Court
observed:
“Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same
solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report. Delay has the effect of putting the Court in its guard to
search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If the prosecution fails
to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is possibility of embellishment in prosecution version on account of such delay, the
delay would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the court, the delay cannot by
itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution case.”
Issue: How much weightage should be given to to the factor of delay in lodging FIR in sexual offences?

Courts are not in favour of giving weightage to the factor of delay in lodging FIR in sexual offences.

Supreme Court has consistently appealed the courts to display a greater sense of responsibility and ‘to be more sensitive’
in handling cases of sexual assault on women, particularly of tender age and children. [See State of Punjab v. Ramdev
Singh, AIR 2004 SC 1290]
 Mandatory Registration of FIR and Exceptions to it

Issue 1: Whether it is obligatory for the police to register FIR on information given by an informant or officer incharge has
discretion of conducting some kind of preliminary enquiry before registering FIR.
Issue 2: Are there any exceptions to Mandatory Registration of FIR?
We will discuss both the issues relating to Mandatory registration of FIR in detail with the help of the decision of Supreme
Court in Lalita Kumari Case.

Special Rules of mandatory reporting for select offences:

The number of crimes against women and children has always been shown less than their actual number in the Crime Record
statistics. Mainly beacuse of two reasons: First, less number of reporting of these crimes and second, reluctance on the part
of the authorities to record these crimes. To deal with the problem of non-reporting of crimes, following provisions are
introduced in several criminal statutes:

Section 166A, clause (c) of the Indian Penal Code confers a positive obligation on a police officer and lays down that if a
police officer fails to record any information given to him under Section 154(1) of the Code in relation to offences of acid
attack, sexual harassment or rape, he shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
six months but may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.The intention of the legislature in enacting section
166A(c) by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 is to tighten the already existing provisions to provide enhanced
safeguards to women.

Non-reporting of commission of an offence falling under sections 19(1) or 20 of the Protection of Children against Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) will invite criminal sanction of imprisonment up to one year and fine under section 21 of the
Act.
Issue: What are the remedies available to an aggrieved person, if the police officer in charge of a police station refuses to
record the information disclosing the commission of cognizable offence.

We will discuss this issue in detail with the help of the decision of Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC
409, wherein the court has discussed the remedies available to an aggrieved person, if the police officer in charge of a police
station refuses to register his FIR.
Issue relating to Validity of Second FIR:
Where more information than one are given to a police officer in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one
cognizable offences, whether the police officer should register both the information separately or he may record any one of the
information as FIR.

The Supreme Court has evolved the ‘test of sameness’ and ‘consequence test’ to decide the validity of the second FIR.
(i) In Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration) [(1979) 2 SCC 322], the Supreme Court laid down the ‘test of sameness’
to decide this issue. In this case, It was held that the two FIR’s denoted separate conspiracies and separate incidents, wherein
the first FIR reveals a smaller conspiracy, the second FIR exposed a larger conspiracy enlarging the ramifications of offences
and scope of the FIR. In such a situation the larger conspiracy cannot be said to be part of the FIR registered first therefore,
the second FIR is permissible.

(ii) In T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181; the Supreme Court found that the facts of both the FIR’s were similar,
against similar individuals and for similar offences; therefore they could be stated to be in the course of the same transaction.
Relying on the ratio of Ram Lal Narang case, the court quashed the second FIR.

(iii) In Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI, (2013)6 SCC3 48 the Supreme Court applied the 'test of consequence' to determine
whether a second FIR was permissible or not. The Court held thus:
“If the offence forming part of the second FIR arises as a consequence of the offence alleged in the first FIR then offences
covered by both the FIRs are the same and, accordingly, the second FIR will be impermissible in law. In other words, the
offences covered in both the FIRs shall have to be treated as part of the first FIR. There cannot be second FIR in respect of the
same offence/event because whenever any further information is received by the investigating agency, it is always in
furtherance of the first FIR. Therefore, Filing of the second FIR and fresh charge sheet in such cases is violative of fundamental
rights under Article 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution.”