THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

SECTION 154

In the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the purposes of setting
criminal investigating agency into motion, offences are characterized into two types:
1. Cognizable offences and
2. Non-Cognizable Offences

In case of cognizable offences, a police officer can arrest an accused without a warrant,
but in the case of non-cognizable offences he cannot arrest and investigate into such
an offence without authorization in this behalf by the Magistrate.

In cases of Cognizable offences, an FIR forms the basis of putting the investigating
machinery into motion.

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT (FIR)

INFORMATION AS TO COGNIZABLE CASES [Section 154]

Any person can give information to the police relating to the commission of a
cognizable offence. Section 154 provides for the manner in which such information is
to be recorded. This recorded information relating to cognizable offence
contemplated by Section 154 is commonly known as First Information Report (FIR),
though that term is not mentioned in the Code.

The first proviso appended to the section lay down that when the information is given
by a woman in relation to offences mentioned in the said proviso, such information
shall be recorded by a woman police officer or any woman officer.

The second proviso lay down that when information relating to offences mentioned
in the proviso is committed against a mentally or physically disabled person, such
information shall be recorded at the residence of such person or at a place convenient
to that person’s choice in the presence of an interpreter or a social educator. It has been
further provided that 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 Section 164(5A).

1
OBJECTS OF FIR

1. The object of FIR is to obtain true or nearly true version of the events connected
with a crime.
2. Secondly, the FIR also provides a check on the undesirable tendency on the part of
the prosecution to fill the gaps on their own.
3. The FIR in a criminal case is extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the
purpose of corroborating the oral evidence abducted at the trail.

The principal object of the FIR from the point of view of the informant 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.

ESSENTIALS OF FIR [SECTION 154(1)]

The question whether or not particular information constitutes a FIR within the
meaning of Section 154 is a question of law and depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case.

In order that information shall be treated as a valid FIR, the following conditions
have to be fulfilled:
1. The information must relate to the commission of a cognizable offence on the face
of it and not in the light of subsequent events
2. The information must have been given to the Officer-in-charge of a Police Station
empowered to record an information under Section 154
3. It must have been the earliest report relating to the commission of a crime with a
view to taking action (investigation) in the matter
4. It must be in writing or be reduced in writing (if oral) and must be signed by the
informant
5. The information reduced in writing must be read out to informant and a copy
thereof should be given to informant forthwith free of cost
6. The substance of the information must be entered in a book called Station Diary or
General Diary.

2
WHO CAN LODGE THE FIR?

FIR can come from any quarter. Every citizen has a right to set machinery of the
criminal law in motion and to bring the offender to book. It need not be lodged by
the victim or by the eye-witness alone. It is also not necessary that the information
has personal knowledge of the incident. Even as anonymous letter sent reporting a
cognizable offence may be treated as FIR. Hence, it can be said that there is no rule
or principle of evidence requiring that the injured should always be the first
informant.

FIR may be classified under two broad divisions:

1. Where the informant is himself cognizant of the crime or claims to have seen the
occurrence or any part of it.
2. Where the informant is an agent for conveying the report from someone cognizant
of the crime.

WHERE FIR CAN BE LODGED

The general rule is that ordinarily the information about the offence committed 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.

In the case of State of AP v. Punati Ramube, 1993 Cri LJ 3684 (SC), the police constable
refused to record the complaint on the ground that the said police station had no
territorial jurisdiction over the place of crime. It was decided 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.

REGISTRATION OF FIR

Duty of the Police Officer to register FIR: The question whether it is obligatory for
the police to register FIR on information given by an informant has been answered in
the affirmative by the five-member Bench in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2

3
SCC 1. It has been categorically ruled that the provisions of Section 154(1) CrPC is
mandatory and the officer concerned is duty bound to register the case on the basis of
information disclosing commission of cognizable offence.

However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR
need not be registered immediately and the police may conduct a preliminary
verification for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence
has been committed.

The underpinnings of compulsory registration of FIR are not only to ensure

transparency in the criminal justice delivery system but also to ensure judicial
oversight.

In the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1, the following directions
were made by the Apex Court:
• 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 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.
• 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. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration
of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information
is genuine, whether the information credible etc. These are the issues that have to
be verified during the investigation of the FIR. If, after investigation, the

4
 information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the
complainant for filing a false FIR.
• 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: (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes;
(b) Commercial offences; (c) Medical negligence cases; (d) Corruption cases; (e)
Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution. 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 case it should 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 the
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.

It has been observed by the Supreme Court that “if allegations made in the FIR are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety does not constitute an offence;
the criminal proceedings instituted on the basis of such FIR should be quashed”. [State
of U.P. v. R.K. Srivastava, (1989) 4 SCC 59]

It was held in Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2006 SC 1322, that Section
154 is mandatory and hence, the concerned officer is duty bound to register the case
on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence.

It was held in the case of Hardip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2009 SC 432, the
Supreme Court held that the written complaint could not be treated as an FIR as it
would amount to a statement made during investigation and is hit by Section 162
CrPC.

Refusal by the Police to register case: The fact of the case revealed that the police did
not register the case of the appellant. But the police did contend that they had
conducted an investigation into the matter concerned. The Supreme Court issued the

5
direction to the police that they should duly investigate the matter after registering
the case of the appellant. [Mohindro v. State of Punjab, AIR 2001 SC 2113]

Registration of FIR against Judges and others: In Kamini Jaiswal v. Union of India,
2018 Cri LJ 1068 (SC), it was held that there cannot be registration of any FIR against
a High Court Judge or Chief Justice of the High Court or the Supreme Court Judge
without the consultation of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and, in case there is an
allegation against Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, the decision has to be taken by the
Hon’ble President of India.

There cannot be any FIR even against the Civil Judge/Munsif without permission of
the Chief Justice of the concerned court; and rightly, FIR has not been registered
against any sitting Judge. If the information is non-confessional, it is admissible
against the accused as an admission under Section 21 of the Evidence Act and is
relevant.

CONTENTS OF FIR

It was held in the case of Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab, 2006 Cri LJ 126 (SC), that
Section 154 requires only the substance of information received to be mentioned in the
daily diary and the same cannot be said to be the repository of every factum.
Therefore, mere non-disclosure of the names of witnesses in the daily diary as well as
mortuary register, ipso facto cannot affect the prosecution case, more so when their
names have been disclosed in the FIR itself.

How much Information is to be provided in FIR

• In Dharmendra Singh v. State of U.P., 1990 Cri LJ 2064, it was held that the fact
that minute details are not mentioned should not be taken to mean the non-
existence of the fact stated.
• It was stated in Kalyan v. State of U.P., (2001) 9 SCC 632, that the statements in the
FIR must naturally get their due weight.

OMISSIONS IN THE FIR

It is not an encyclopaedia of the entire case. It is sufficient if it gives broad spectrum

of the incident. [Manoj v. State of Maharashtra, JT 1999 (2) SC 58]. In the case of

6
Superintendent of Police, CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh, 2003 Cri LJ 2322 (SC), it was
held that FIR is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating
to the reported offences. Only a report lodged by the informant about the commission
of offence without any name is sufficient for the disclosure of the commission of
cognizable offence.

Omission to mention the name of the accused: The fact that the names of some
accused are not mentioned in FIR is a circumstance, which the prosecution has to
explain, though no rule of law stipulates that an accused whose name is not mentioned
in FIR is entitled to an acquittal [Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983 Cr. L.J. 985
(SC)]

Where no satisfactory explanation is furnished for omission to mention the name of

the accused in the FIR, the court may doubt the veracity of the prosecution. [Bishan
Dass v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 573]

FIR is not expected to contain all the details of the prosecution case; it may be sufficient
if the broad facts of the prosecution case alone appear. Omission in the first statement
of the information is not fatal to the case. The impact of the omission has to be
adjudged in the totality of the circumstances and the veracity of the evidence. Thus,
merely because the names of the accused persons are not mentioned in the FIR, it
cannot be a ground to raise doubts about the prosecution case. [Mukesh v. State for
NCT of Delhi, AIR 2017 SC 2161]

Omission to mention name of witnesses: In was held in State of U.P. v. Krishna

Master and others, (2010) 4 Cri LJ 3889 (SC), that FIR need not be an encyclopaedia of
all facts and circumstances, minute details need not be given.

There is no requirement of mentioning the names of all witnesses in the First

Information Report. [State of M.P. v. Dharkole alias Govind Singh, AIR 2005 SC 44]

If witness is found to be independent and reliable and is believed to be present during

the occurrence then his evidence cannot be rejected on the sole ground that his name
has not been mentioned in the FIR. [Babu Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996 Cri LJ 2503
SC]

7
FIR is not an encyclopaedia which is expected to contain all the details of the
prosecution case. Omission as to the names of the assailant or the witnesses may not
all the times be fatal to the prosecution, if the FIR is lodged without delay. Unless there
are indications of fabrication, the court cannot reject the prosecution case as given in
the FIR merely because of omission. [Motiram Padu Joshi v. State of Maharashtra,
AIR 2018 SC 3245]

Merely because the names of the accused are not stated and their names are not
specified in the FIR that may not be ground to doubt the contents of the FIR and the
case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out on this court. The value to be attached
to the FIR depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. [Latesh v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 2018 SC 659]

The Supreme Court in Smt. Gargi v. State of Haryana, AIR 2019 SC 4864, held that
where omissions, perforce, give visa to adverse interference against the prosecution
and investigation seems to have been carried out either with pre-conceived notions or
with a particular result in view, such investigation is liable to be declared faulty and
unaccepted.

COPY OF FIR TO BE SENT TO MAGISTRATE FORTHWITH

As Section 157 requires the FIR to be sent to the Magistrate forthwith, it must be sent
even on Sundays and holidays. Where the FIR reached the jurisdictional Magistrate
more than 30 hours after the incident and no explanation was given in respect of such
delay and the distance between the Magistrate’s Court and the Police Station was very
close, such delay created a serious doubt about the prosecution case. [Gunju Mhd. v.
State of Kerala, (2004) 9 SCC 193] However, delay in dispatch of the FIR to the
Magistrate cannot alone be a ground for throwing out the prosecution case if
otherwise the prosecution case is proved by impeachable evidence.

GUIDELINES FOR SUPPLY OF FIR COPY TO ACCUSED

In Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India, 2017 Cri LJ 1093 (1095) (SC), the
Supreme Court issued following directions in matters relating to FIR:
a) An accused is entitled to get a copy of the First Information Report at an earlier
stage than as prescribed under Section 207 of CrPC.

8
b) An accused who has reasons to suspect that he has been roped in criminal case and
his name may be finding place in a First Information Report can submit an
application.

While interpreting Section 154(2), the Supreme Court in State v. N.S. Gnaneswaran,
(2013) 3 SCC 594, categorically held that non-supply of copy of FIR under Section
154(2) CrPC may not vitiate the trial in every case.

WHEN A STATEMENT AMOUNTS TO FIR?

The question whether a statement is FIR or is one made after the receipt of FIR
assumes importance. It has been held that first information is that information which
is given to the police first in point of time (on the basis of which the investigation has
been commenced) and not that which the police may select and record as first
information.

However, any sort of information given first in point of time is not necessarily first
information within Section 154. It is necessary that such information must relate to a
cognizable offence on the face of it, and not merely in the light of subsequent events.

Section 154 does not necessarily contemplate that only one information of a crime
should be recorded as FIR, but all information given to the police before the
investigation is started, may amount to first information. Therefore, information
lodged at two different police stations regarding the same offence would both be
admissible in evidence. However, there is a trend of court’s acceptance of FIR as
statements which give circumstances of the crime with a view that the police officer
might proceed to investigate.

In this view the Supreme Court accepted as FIR, a statement which the police officer
recorded on the next day of occurrence though he visited the place on the date of
occurrence itself. [Pattad Amarappa v. State of Karnataka, 1989 Cri LJ 2167 SC]

If any oral information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is given to

the police officer, but the same is not recorded and the police officer proceeds to the
scene of the offence and records statements of witnesses, none of such statements
would amount to FIR. Because in such a case the real FIR is the unrecorded oral

9
information given to the police officer by the informant. [S.V. Madar v. State of
Mysore, (1980) 1 SCC 479]

The following points may be noted about the FIR:

• It should be information of fact disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence.
• It should not be vague or indefinite. If the allegations made in the FIR are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute an offence, the
criminal proceedings instituted on the basis of such an FIR should be quashed.
[State of UP v. R.K. Srivastava, (1989) 4 SCC 59]
• It may be given by anybody; the injured should not always be the first informant.
• It is not necessary that the offender or the witnesses should be named.

The following do not come within the purview of a FIR, namely:

a. A statement given to the police after investigation have commenced.
b. A statement made by a witness during investigation.
c. A statement recorded by an officer in charge on the basis of his personal knowledge
after the original information was received.
d. A report by a police officer informing his superior that he had been told of the
possible commission of a dacoity at some time in the future.
e. A complaint made orally or in writing to a Magistrate.

CRYPTIC INFORMATION OR MESSAGE IS NOT AN FIR

It has been observed by the Apex court in the case of Patai v. State of UP, AIR 2010
SC 2254, 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 into writing as required under Section
154 CrPC and it is a faithful record of such information and the information discloses
commission of a cognizable offence and is not cryptic one or incomplete in essential
details, it would constitute FIR.

A cryptic and anonymous telephonic message which did not clearly specify a
cognizable offence cannot be treated as FIR, even if such information was given by an
identifiable person. [State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Cri LJ 527 SC]

10
Where as soon as the Police Officer, on receipt of a telephonic message was about to
proceed to the place of occurrence, an eyewitness of the occurrence appeared and gave
written version of the incident, on the basis of which the formal FIR as drawn up, it
was held that the cryptic telephonic message did not amount to FIR but the written
report legally formed the FIR. [Ram Singh Bavaji Jadega v. State of Gujarat, 1994 Cri
LJ 3067 SC]

Sometimes it may happen that more than one person go at or about the same time and
make statements to the police about the same cognizable offence. In such a situation
the police officer will use common sense and record one of the statements as FIR.

The prosecution witness gave to the police station information about murder on
telephone. The head constable noted it though it was a cryptic report and also only for
the purpose of visiting the scene of occurrence. He and the investigating officer did
not say that it was a detailed report. The subsequent information was a detailed one
and came to be recorded. The Court said that there was nothing to prevent it being
treated as the first FIR. [Vikram v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 1893]

EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF FIR

The FIR can be put in evidence (usually by the prosecution) when the informant is
examined, if it is desirable to do so. However, FIR is not a piece of substantive
evidence, and it cannot be preferred to the evidence given by the witness in court.
It can be used for limited purposes, like corroborating (under Section 157, Evidence
Act) or contradicting (cross-examination under Section 145, Evidence Act) the maker
thereof, or to show that the implication of the accused was not an after-thought. It can
also be used under Section 32(1) and Sections 8 of the Evidence Act.
• It was held in Hasib v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 283, that it does not
constitute substantive evidence; it can, however, be used as a previous statement
for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction of its makes u/s. 157 or under
section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act
• In the case of George v. State of Kerala, 1998 Cri LJ 2034 SC, it was held by the SC
that the FIR cannot be used for the purposes of corroborating or contradicting or
discrediting any witness other than the one lodging the FIR. It was held in D.R.
Bhagare v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 476, that FIR can by no means
be utilised for contradiction or discrediting other witnesses. It cannot be used for

11
 corroborating the statement of a third party. [State of MP v. Surhan, AIR 1996 SC
3345]
• It was held in Harkirat Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1997 SC 3231, that where the
person lodging the FIR died, the Supreme Court held that the contents of the FIR
could be used for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting the person if he had
been examined but not as substantive piece of evidence.
• It was held in Bable alias Gurdeep Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2012 SC
2621, that it is well-settled that FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence, but
certainly it is a relevant circumstance of the evidence produced by the investigating
agency. Merely because the informant turns hostile, it cannot be said that FIR would
lose its relevancy and cannot be looked into for any purpose.
• FIR can be used for the purpose of testing the truth of the prosecution story. [Ram
Kumar v. State of MP, AIR 1975 SC 1026]
• FIR by accused: If the FIR is given by the accused himself, then it can be either
Confessional or Non – Confessional.

Confessional FIR: If the FIR is confessional in nature, it cannot be proved against the
accused-informant as it would be hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Non - Confessional FIR: If the FIR is non-confessional in nature, it can be admissible

in evidence under Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act or showing his conduct under
Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.

If the FIR is given to the police by the accused himself, it cannot possibly be used either
for corroboration or contradiction because the accused cannot be a prosecution
witness, and he would very rarely offer himself to be a defence witness under Section
315 of the Code. If the FIR given by the accused person is non-confessional, it may be
admissible in evidence against the accused as an admission under Section 21 of the
Indian Evidence Act, or, as showing his conduct under Section 8 of the Indian
Evidence Act. [Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119] If the FIR is of a
confessional nature, it cannot be proved against the accused-informant, because
according to Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, no confession made to a police
officer can be proved as against a person accused of any offence. But it might become
relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act as his conduct. [Bheru Singh v.
State of Rajasthan, (1994) 2 SCC 467]

12
The evidentiary value of FIR is far greater than that of any other statement recorded
by the police during the course of the investigation.

FIR on the statement of the accused: ADMISSIBILITY

In the case of Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119, the Supreme Court
dissected the furdbayan into 18 parts as inculpatory and exculpatory statements and
held that all the inculpatory parts of the statements are hit by Section 25 of the
Evidence Act and were inadmissible in evidence. In a recent decision, the Supreme
Court held that FIR recorded on the statement of the accused is not admissible as
confession.

DELAY IN LODGING FIR

Delay in lodging FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for discarding prosecution
case and doubting its authenticity. It only puts the Court on guard to search for and
consider if any explanation has been offered for the delay. Once it is offered, the court
is only to see whether it is satisfactory or not. Delay in giving first information can be
condoned if there is satisfactory explanation. Unexplained delays smell of after-
thought, concoction etc. and as such its veracity reduces.

Criminal courts attach great importance to the lodging of prompt FIR because the
same greatly diminishes the chances of false implication of accused as well as that of
the informant being tutored. The prompt FIR goes a long way in establishing that the
prosecution story was an authentic and truthful one. Thus, the FIR relies on
spontaneity. Deliberation and consultation are inimical to it.
• There is no hard and fast rule that delay in lodging the FIR would automatically
render the case doubtful. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
However, the fact that the report was lodged belatedly is a relevant factor of which
the court must take notice. [Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 155]
There is no mathematical formula by which an inference is drawn regarding
acceptability. [Amar Singh v. Balvinder Singh, 2003 Cri LJ 1282 SC]
• In Tara Chand v. State of Haryana, AIR 1971 SC 1891, it was held that the mere fact
that first information has been lodged early does not rule out embellishment or
falsehood in every case.

13
• In State of HP v. Shreekant Shekari, 2004 Cri LJ 4232 (SC), it was held by the
Supreme Court that the unusual circumstances in this case, satisfactorily explained
the delay in lodging of the FIR. In any event delay per se is not a mitigating
circumstance for the accused when the accusations of rape are unaware of the
catastrophe which had befallen to her. That being so, the mere delay in lodging FIR
does not in any way render prosecution version brittle.
• In Apren Joseph v. The State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1, it was held that mere delay,
in lodging the FIR is not necessarily, as a matter of law, fatal to the prosecution. The
plausibility of the explanation for delay falls for consideration in such a case. Delay
can be condoned if there is a satisfactory explanation.
• In Gajanan Dashrath Kharate v. State of Maharashtra, (2016) 4 SCC 604, it was
held that delay in setting the law into motion by lodging of complaint and
registration of FIR is normally viewed by Courts with suspicion because there is
possibility of concoction and embellishment of the occurrence. So, it becomes
necessary for the prosecution to satisfactorily explain the delay.
• A promptly lodged FIR reflects the first-hand account of what actually happened,
and who was responsible for the offence. [Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR
2012 SC 1676]
• Delay in examining witnesses by investing officer does not ipso facto make
prosecution version suspect. Investigation Officer should be categorically
questioned in aspect of delayed examination.

In Bhav Singh v. State of MP, AIR 2019 SC 2989, the accused armed with country
made pistol caused death of the deceased by firing. The testimonies of eye-witnesses
corroborated by each other. The credibility of FIR was challenged the ground that the
inquest number was not mentioned in the FIR and that it was ante dated. The Court
rejected both the pleas of defence and held inquest being done at the crime-spot and
FIR being registered at police station, mention of inquest number in FIR does not affect
prosecution case nor does it affect credibility of eye-witnesses. As regards objection
that FIR was ante-dated it was not sent immediately to Court after its registration, it
was held that as Court time was over, hence production of FIR before Court on next
day during Court timings does not indicate that FIR is ante-dated.

The Supreme Court in CBI v. Sakru Mahagu Binjewar & Ors, AIR 2019 SC 3550,
reiterated where the delay of some hours in registration of the FIR has been

14
satisfactorily explained by the prosecution, there is no rhyme or reason for a court to
look on the prosecution case with suspicious eyes.

The FIR will have better corroborative value if it is recorded before there is time and
opportunity to embellish or before the informant’s memory fails. Undue or
unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR therefore, inevitably gives rise to suspicion
which puts the court on guard to look for the possible motive and the explanation and
consider its effect on the trustworthiness or otherwise of the prosecution version. [P.
Rajagopal v. State of T.N. (2019) 5 SCC 403]

Delay in lodging F.I.R. in rape cases:

• In Kulwant Singh and others v. State of Punjab, (2012) 3 Cri LJ 2199 (SC) it was
held that delay in lodging F.I.R. is not a ground to throw away entire prosecution
cases.
• It was held in Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana, 1993 Cri LJ 314 (SC) that delay in
lodging FIR in sexual offence has to be considered with different yardstick.
• Where delay in FIR in a rape case had taken place, the court was satisfied by the
explanation that since the honour of the family was involved, the complaint was
delayed. [Harpal Singh v. State of H.P., AIR 1981 Sc 361]
• In Vidyadharan v. State of Kerala, 2004 Cri LJ 605 SC, the Apex Court noted that
a delay in lodging FIR is quite natural in traditional bound society to avoid
embarrassment. In cases of outraging the modesty of a woman or rape, the
reputation of a woman come as a natural and obvious reason for delay, and it
should not be suspected. Only unexplained delay in lodging the FIR can be a
ground to arouse suspicion.
• In Om Prakash v. State of Haryana, AIR 2011 SC 2682, in a gang-rape case, the
Supreme Court held that a young girl, who underwent trauma of rape, is likely to
be reluctant in describing those events to anybody including her family members.
Thus, the report lodged without any delay the moment she told her parents about
the incident, can be a reasonable explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR.
• In Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP, AIR 2014 SC 187, a 5 member Bench of the
Supreme Court reiterated that registration of FIR relating to sexual offence is
mandatory without any more than a preliminary enquiry that it discloses a
cognizable offence.

15
Second FIR in respect of same Offence: The Supreme Court in Pattu Ranjan v. State
of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2019 SC 1674 held that second FIR for offence of murder
subsequent to first FIR for offence of abduction under section 154 will be legal and
proper as the two relate to two separate and distinct offences and FIR for the second
offence committed during investigation of first, cannot be said to be lodged in course
of same transaction.

TYPES OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

ZERO FIR: A police officer is legally bound to record in writing every information
relating to the commission of a cognizable offence alleged to be committed within his
jurisdiction. However, it has been held that any lack of territorial jurisdiction should
not prevent the police officer 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. [State of A.P. v. Punati Ramube,
1993 Cr LJ 3684 (SC)] Such FIR is called a Zero FIR. Such an FIR is also termed a non-
jurisdictional FIR.

ANTE-TIMED FIR: Any FIR which has been lodged before the occurrence of the
event is termed as Ante-timed FIR. Such an FIR is a false FIR and such FIRs are lodged
normally in those cases where the offence has been fabricated and has been falsely
imputed upon the accused.

CROSS FIR: When for the same incident the FIRs have been filed by both the parties
against each other, the FIR is known as Cross FIR. Generally, the High Courts will not
quash either of the FIRs. It will instead order that both the investigations should be
carried out by the same Police officer. Upon the filing of the Police report, both the
cases would be tried by the same court.

MULTIPLE FIRs: For the same case, if several FIRs have been lodged against the
accused, these are said to be Multiple FIRs. The consequence will be that for the same
case multiple investigations will be carried out and the accused will be vexed as many
number of times. That will lead to unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings. The
accused can filed an application under section 482 and get all other FIRs quashed.
Normally, the first FIR will be retained.

16
Q. Is investigation dependent upon the filing of an FIR?
No, the filing of an FIR is not compulsory for starting of an investigation. It is in
general that FIR is the starting point of an investigation.
For Police manual: Yes

Q. Is FIR a privileged document?

No, it is a public document. A copy of a FIR is obtainable.

Q. Is FIR a presumed document?

No, it does not fall within the ambit of Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act. There is
no presumption as to the genuineness of the FIR.

Q. Can a child or lunatic file an FIR?

Unsound mind person – When he is of sound mind
Child- If he can become a witness.

17