Law and You >Procedural Laws > CrPC > Section 154 of CrPC (FIR)
In this article, we shall study the concept of “the First Information” under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Commonly this reporting is known as the First Information Report (FIR).
The investigation is one of the important functions carried out by the Police. The purpose of the investigation is to collect evidence and apprehend the culprit. Sec. 154 to 176 of Chapter XII titled “information to Police and their power of investigation” of Cr. P.C., 1973 deals with an investigation by the police. The law commission in its 14 the Report (1958) has suggested that investigating staff should be separated from the law and order staff to enable the investigation officer to devote undivided attention to investigation work. The right of an investigation by police under Chapter XII of CrPC cannot be challenged in any court.
Section 154 (1) and 154(2) of CrPC:
Section 154 (1) of CrPC lays down that “Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if 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; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, 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 State Government may prescribe in this behalf.”
Section 154 (2) of CrPC lays down that “A copy of the information as recorded under Sub-Section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.”
The Concept of First Information Report (FIR):
The information given to a police officer and reduced to writing as required under section 154 (1) of the Code is known as the “first information”. To file an FIR, a person may approach the officer in charge of a police station within whose local limits a crime has taken place.
In Ramakant Singh v. State of Bihar, 2006 Cr LJ 4752 (4754) case, the Court observed that the term “first information report” or “FIR” is not mentioned anywhere in the Code, but these words are understood to mean information recorded under Section 154 of CrPC.
In T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (MANU/SC/0365/2001) case, the Supreme Court observed: “Subsection (1) of Section 154 of CrPC, is commonly known as the First Information Report (FIR), though this term is not used in the Code … As its nickname suggests, it is the earliest and the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer in charge of a police station.”
The police can take action even before the FIR is recorded, In State of Maharashtra v. Ahmed Shaikh Babajan, 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 224 case, the Supreme observed that “FIR is not a condition precedent to the setting of criminal law into motion.”
Meaning of the word “Information”:
The word “Information” in this section means something in the nature of a complaint or accusation or at least information of a crime given with the object of putting the police in motion in order to investigate.
In Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 536(P&H) case, the Court held that the genuineness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for registration of the case.
In Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 3(SC) case, the Court held that the information lodged with Police disclosing cognizable offence, the officer-in-charge of a Police station is statutorily obliged to register a case.
In Tohal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 1989 Cri LJ 1350 (Raj) case, the Court has opined that: “If the telephonic message has been given to officer in charge of a police station, the person giving the message is an ascertained one or is capable of being ascertained the information has been reduced to writing as required under S.154 of CrPC and it is faithful record of such information and the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and is not cryptic one or in complete in essential details, it would constitute FIR.”
In Goverdhan Lal v. State, 2004 Cr LJ 3966 (3969) (Raj) case, the Court held that mere telephonic message to the police informing about any incident would not be treated FIR, as normally a telephonic message is given to the police so that it may reach the spot immediately.
If unanimous person inform about the offence to police on telephone, in that case FIR cannot be registered because there is no person to sign the information reduced in writing and to whom the police can read out the oral statement reduced to writing.
Object of Registering FIR:
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 the guilty to book.
In State of U.P vs. Krishna Mater, 2010 (2) L.S 42 (SC) case, the Court held that the basic purpose of filing an FIR is to set criminal law into motion and not to state all the minute details therein.
In Dilawar Singh vs State Of Delhi (MANU/SC/3678/2007) case, the Court observed: “After all registration of FIR involves only the process of entering the substance of the information relating to the Commission of a cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer in charge… as indicated in Sec. 154 of the Code”.
The objects of registering FIR can be summarized as follows:
- To have it signed by the informant if submitted in writing.
- To reduce the substance of data given of a cognizable offense, whenever given orally, into a composed written form.
- To maintain a record of information of the cognizable offences committed.
- To initiate investigation on receipt of information of commission of cognizable offence.
- To inform the District Magistrate and the District Superintendent of Police, who are responsible for the peace and safety of the district, of the offence, reported at the police station.
- To make known to the judiciary and judicial officers before whom the case has to be ultimately tried, about the facts and scenario which came out after the immediate occurrence of the crime.
- To safeguard and protect the accused against subsequent additions or variations.
Essentials of FIR:
- It must be first in point of time.
- It must be information, responsible but not vague, gossip or hear say.
- It must relate to the commission of a cognizable offence.
- It must be made to officer in-charge of a police station.
- It must be in writing or put into writing if given orally and read over to the Informant.
- It must be signed by the informant.
Essentials of FIR w.r.t. the Offence:
FIR is an important document although it is not a substantive piece of evidence but at times it affects the prosecution case. Therefore correct recording of FIR is required. FIR should contain as much information as is available at the time of recording it. The Police Officer in Charge or registering officer must ask following questions to make FIR complete.
- What the informant got to convey?
- What is his capacity – eye witness victim or hear say?
- Who possibly committed crime?
- Who is the victim of the crime?
- When did it occur?
- Where did it occur? (the spot)
- Why did it occur? (Motive of crime)
- Which way? (How)
- Who else was present then?
- What was taken away by the accused? (Any article/property)
- What traces were left by accused? (Physical clues).
Who can Lodge FIR?
- An aggrieved person or somebody on his behalf, or
- Any person who is aware of the offence by being either: (a) an eye witness and/or (b) hearsay account, or
- The accused himself, or
- The Station Head Officer (SHO) on his own knowledge or information.
In Hallu vs State of MP (1974) SC 1936 case, the Court observed: “Section 154 does not require that the report must be given by a person who has personal knowledge of the incident reported. The section speaks of information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence given to an officer incharge of police station”
Steps Involved in Registering FIR:
- Informant provides information about cognizable offence orally or written to the officer in charge of a police station
- The officer reduces the oral information in composed writing.
- The officer read over the statement to the informant
- The Informant must sign the statement
- The officer makes corresponding entries in the Station Diary.
- The copy of the statement is given to the informant free of cost.
Important Points Related to FIR:
- FIR is lodged with a view to set the investigation process in motion and not for the purpose of setting down on paper all known facts and circumstances about the incident (State of Orissa v. Dilip Kumar Chand, 1987 Cr LJ 1242 (Ori-DB))
- FIR does not constitute substantive evidence (Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1991 SC 31)
- FIR is not condition precedent for setting up the criminal motion.
- Delay in lodging FIR without satisfactory explanation is looked upon with grave suspicion because there are chances of fabrication. Wherever there is delay it must be properly explained in the FIR – itself.
- There cannot be more than one F.I.R. in one case; however, there may be many the victims in one case. (Ram Lai Singh v. State. AIR 1958 M.P. 380)
- An FIR of confession nature made by an accused person is inadmissible in evidence against him except the fact that he made statement soon after the offence, identifying him as a maker of the report, which is admissible as evidence of his conduct u/s 8 of the Evidence Act and the information furnished by him, leading to the discovery of a fact, which is admissible u/s 27 evidence act (Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. the State of Bihar – SSCA 37/65)
FIR in case of Acid Attack, Rape, Harassment:
There is a proviso attached to Section 154(1). This proviso is applicable to the woman against whom an offence under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, section 376A, section1 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB, section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer.
| Section 326 A | Voluntary causing grievous hurt by use of acid. |
| Section 326 B | Voluntary throwing or attempting to throw acid. |
| Section 354 | Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty. |
| Section 354 A | Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment. |
| Section 354 B | Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe. |
| Section 354 C | Voyeurism. |
| Section 354 D | Stalking. |
| Section 376 | Rape. |
| Section 376 A | Causing death or resulting in persistent vegetative state of victim. |
| Section 376 AB | Rape on woman under twelve years age |
| Section 376 B | Sexual intercourse by husband upon his wife during separation. |
| Section 376 C | Sexual intercourse by a person in authority. |
| Section 376 D | Gang rape. |
| Section 376 DA | Gang rape on woman under sixteen years of age. |
| Section 376 DB | Gang rape on woman under twelve years of age. |
| Section 376 E | Repeat offenders of above offences. |
| Section 509 | Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman. |
Thus in such offences and for the woman victim, the information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer. The recording of such information shall be video graphed and the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (5A) of section 164 as soon as possible.
Refusal by Police to Lodge FIR:
Person seeking to register FIR should know that the FIR can only registered for cognizable offences only and not for non-cognizable offences. Hence he should be sure that the offence is of cognizable nature (Refer Schedule I of CrPC). The police must register FIR in case of cognizable offence after receiving the information about it from the informant.
When any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before the officer in charge of a police station, the officer in charge has no option but to register the case on the basis thereof. If the information is oral he has to reduce it in writing or get reduced into writing under his direction. The oral information reduced to writing must be read over to the informant. Written information about the offence or the oral information reduced to writing must be signed by the informant and a corresponding entry of the substance of the information be made in a book known as the Station Diary or General Diary. Under Section 154(2) lays down that, a copy of information as recorder under Section 154(1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
In Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 3(SC) case, the Court held that the information lodged with Police disclosing cognizable offence, the officer-in-charge of a Police station is statutorily obliged to register a case.
In Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 case, the Court held that genuineness, reliability, and credibility of the information is no ground to refuse to register the information.
Sometimes, the police may refuse to lodge a first information report in case of cognizable offence. This can be both legal and illegal. In cases or is not in their legal capacity to take cognizance or the offence is of non-cognizable nature, it will be held legal. But where police refuses to file the complaint for blatant reasons, without any substantial legal ground, it is contrary to law. When a police officer refuses to register the FIR on the ground that it discloses a non-cognizable offence, he must inform the informant and direct him to file a complaint to the magistrate. In case the offence committed is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of a police station, information should be recorded and forwarded to the appropriate police-station having jurisdiction, otherwise refusing to record on this ground will amount to dereliction of duty.
In State of A.P. vs. Punati Ravulu, AIR 1993 SC 2644 case, the Court held that refusal to record information is dereliction of duty by a public officer.
Under Section 154(3), in the event that the Officer in Charge of the police station refuses to receive or record information of such cognizable offence, then the informant can inform such refusal to the Superintendent of Police concerned in writing and by post. If the Superintendent of Police is satisfied that the information discloses a cognizable offence and report should be registered, then he should act in terms of Chapter XII of CrPC. He can do the investigation by registering FIR himself or ask his subordinate police officer to do so. Such police officer appointed has all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.
If the complainant failed to get register FIR with the Superintendent of Police, the complainant is legally entitled to file a complaint to the Judicial Magistrate/ Metropolitan Magistrate u/s 156(3) read with Sec. 190 of the criminal procedure thereby praying FIR to be registered by the police and investigation into the matter.
If the complainant fails to get register FIR through the Judicial Magistrate/ Metropolitan Magistrate, then he can file a Writ Petition in the respective High Court for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus against the defaulting Police officers, inter alia, to Register the FIR and directing him to show cause
- Why he has not registered the FIR;
- Why disciplinary proceedings for Misconduct should not be initiated against him for dereliction of duty; and
- Why he should not be suspended from Police service for interfering in the administration of justice and shielding the accused person.
Evidentiary Value of FIR:
An FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence. That is, it cannot be considered as evidence of facts stated therein. However, FIR may be used for the following purposes:
- It can be used to corroborate an informant witness u/s 157 of Evidence Act. But it cannot be used to contradict or discredit other witnesses.
- It can be used to contradict an informant witness u/s 145 of Evidence Act.
- It can be used by the defence to impeach the credit of the maker under sec. 155(3) of the Evidence Act.
- A non-confessional FIR given by an accused can be used as an admission against him u/s 21 of Evidence Act.
- FIR can be used as a dying declaration as substantive evidence If it relates to the cause or occasion or circumstances and facts which resulted in the informant’s death. within the meaning of section 32(1) of the Evidence Act.
Guidelines of the Supreme Court for Registering FIR:
In Lalita Kumari vs Govt. Of U.P., AIR 2012 SC 1515 case, the Bench consisting of P Sathasivam J., B.S. Chauhan J., Ranjana Prakash Desai J., Ranjan Gogoi J., S.A. Bobde J. gave following guidelines regarding FIR:
- Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
- If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether the cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
- If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
- The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if a cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
- The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
- As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
- Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
- Commercial offences
- Medical negligence cases
- Corruption cases
- Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for the delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
- While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and in any case, it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
- Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.
Distinguishing Between FIR and Complaint:
| FIR | Complaint |
| FIR is not defined under the code. But it is nick name used for the “first information” of a cognizable offence recorded by an in charge of police station. | A complaint is defined u/s 2(d) of CrPC as “any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.” |
| FIR is lodged with an officer in charge of a police station of the jurisdiction of the place of commission of crime. | The complaint is filed with the Magistrate either orally or writing. |
| It may be lodged only for cognizable offences only. | It may be filed for both cognizable as well as non-cognizable offences |
| The FIR has prescribed format | There is no prescribed format for the complaint. |
| The informant is not bound to take an oath before the police officer while lodging FIR | The Complainant must take an oath before the Magistrate. |
| It is not a substantive piece of evidence. | The complaint itself is substantial evidence. |
| On registering FIR investigation is done by a police officer without prior permission of the Magistrate. | On receiving complaint the inquiry is done by Magistrate or officer under Magistrate’s direction |
| FIR once registered cannot be withdrawn. | Under Section 257 of CrPC, in case of summons case, the complainant can withdraw complaint against all or any of the accused, at any time before a final order is passed. |
| The informant would not be liable for malicious prosecution if the information furnished by him is found to be incorrect or false. | The complainant is liable for malicious prosecution if the complaint is found to be false. |
| The magistrate cannot take into cognizance of an offence. | Under Section 190 of CrPC, the magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of an offence upon a private complaint. |
Conclusion:
Sec. 154 to 176 of Chapter XII titled “information to Police and their power of investigation” of Cr. P.C., 1973 deals with an investigation by the police. The FIR is the first step of Criminal Procedure that leads to the trial and punishment of a criminal. It is also the most important supportive evidence on which the entire structure of the prosecution case is built-up.