Criminal Complaint is of 2 types. One is FIR (First Information Report)
and the second is Private Complaint a Complaint which is to be given to a
magistrate either orally or in writing, whereas the first information report is
lodged at the police station nearby the place of commission of crime. According
to s. 2(d) Criminal Procedure Code, a complaint is the allegation of fact which
constitutes a complaint.
What Is An FIR?
An Inspector General of Police once said: I have worked 24 years in police
department and honestly speaking, I do not know how to draft a F.I.R. properly.
I do not know how to inspect a scene of crime scientifically and to be more
specific, I do not know how to interrogate a suspect psychologically.
First Information Report is the most crucial/important document in Criminal
Prosecution. It is called the First Information Report as the same opens the
gates of investigation as the Information reaches the Police First in time.
First Information Report (FIR) is a written document prepared by the police
when they receive information about the commission of a cognizable offence. It
is generally a complaint lodged with the police by the victim of a cognizable
offence or by someone on his/her behalf.
A First Information Report (FIR) is the very first step in the criminal matter
in which the facts of the commission of crime is reported to the police by the
person who is a witness to the case, victim or a person who has a knowledge of
the same act done by the accused.
The definition of the FIR is provided in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which states 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
As described in law:
- When information about the commission of a cognizable offence is given
orally, the police must write it down.
- The complainant or supplier of the information has a right to demand
that the information recorded by the police be read to him or her.
- Once the information has been recorded by the police, it must be signed
by the person giving the information.
- The complainant has a right to get free copy of an FIR as per section
154(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
First Information Report is written by a Police Officer. The State has duty to
take cognizance of the commission of a cognizable case. Generally a Police
officer does not possess the adequate knowledge to deal with these cases
promptly, as these cases demand urgent attention because the delay erases the
The Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Benga
l has observed that in
view of the expectation of the society that police must deal with the criminals
in an efficient and effective manner and bring to book those who are involved in
the crime. The cure can't however, the worse than the decease itself.
The expression, First Information or First Information Report is not defined in
the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) 1973, but these words are always
understood to mean, Information recorded under Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. It is
the Information given to a Police Officer in the form of a complaint or
accusation, regarding the commission or suspected commission of a cognizable
offence. It is given with the object of setting the criminal law in motion and
police start the investigation.
This report forms the foundation of the case.
The question whether or not a particular document would constitute F.I.R. is a
question of fact, which depends upon the circumstances of each case.
The statement made by a witness who initiated the proceedings when reduced
to writing is the F.I.R. Genuineness or credibility of the information is not a
condition precedent for registration of the case. Information lodged with Police
disclosing cognizable offence, the officer-in-charge of a Police station is
statutorily obliged to register a case.
F.I.R. is the information which is given
first in point of time. Obviously, there cannot be more than one F.I.R. in one
case; however, there may be many the victims in one case. This First Information
Report shall be based on the complaint as made or on the information as
available at that point of time.
A good FIR must address the six issues of- What is the nature of the incident,
Where and When did it happen, who is reporting and against whom and why did the
incident happen. These six W's begin the process of data collection,
collation and analysis that hopefully results in the arrest and prosecution of
the involved person or persons.
The following two conditions are to be satisfied before information could be
treated as F.I.R:
- It must be an information
- Secondly, it must relate to a cognizable offence on the face of it and
not merely in the light of the subsequent events.
Section 154 uses the word report' the words F.I.R. have a legal importance.
It may be possible that there should be more than one report about the one and
the same incident. In such cases, the F.I.R. would be a report under this
section. The F.I.R. is the earliest report made to the police officer with a
view to his taking action in the matter.
The F.I.R. must be in the nature of a complaint or accusation with the object of
getting the law in motion. The F.I.R. is information given by an informant given
by an informant on which the investigation is commenced.
Now, it is well settled that any information given on phone too in respect of
a cognizable offence to a police officer-in-charge of a police station will be
treated as F.I.R.: provided the said information received through the phone is
reduced into writing
by the officer of the police station and signed by him.
FIR is the first step of Criminal Procedure that leads to the trial and
punishment of a criminal. It is also most important supportive evidence on which
the entire structure of the prosecution case is built-up. The main objective of
the FIR is to enable the Police officer-in-charge of the Police Station to
initiate the investigation on the crime and to collect evidence as soon as
possible. It is first report of the crime and so it is a valuable document that
throws much light on the crime.
It is also important because it is a statement
which is made soon after the occurrence of the crime without fabrication and any
prosecution case that may be subsequently made-up can be checked in the light of
the first report. FIR is an important document. FIR is not 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.
Object And Importance Of F.I.R.
FIR sets the Criminal Law in Motion. Object of FIR are many and these are
- Commission of the Crime is reported.
- The Accused who has committed the crime is taken to task.
- There should no repetition of the crime.
In Emp. v. Kh. Nazir Ahmed
, the honorable court held that the object of the FIR
is to obtain early information of alleged criminal activity, to record the
circumstances before there is time for them to be forgotten and embellished, and
the report can be put in evidence when the informant is examined if it is
desired to do so. This view was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Wilayat Khan v. State of U.P
F.I.R. is the Bible of the case initiated on police report. The Object of F.I.R. from
the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion. From
the point of view of investigating authorities it is to obtain information about
the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps for
tracing and bringing to book the guilty party.
The report does not constitute
substantive evidence though it is important as conveying the earliest
information about the occurrence. It can be used only as a previous statement
for the purpose contemplated under section 157 or section 145 of the Evidence
Act that is for corroborating or contradicting its maker and not of other
The object of Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to obtain early
information of alleged criminal activity, to record the circumstances before
there is time for them to be embellished or forgotten.
No doubt the F.I.R. being an early record and the first version of the alleged
criminal activity conveyed to the police officers with the object of putting the
police in motion in order to investigate is an important and valuable document.
F.I.R. is used to check subsequent improvements and embellishments during trial.
While explaining the legal position as to the right of informant to take the
matter to the police by lodging F.I.R. or to the court direct, by filing
complaint, the Andhra Pradesh, High Court has held that both the courses under
Section 154 and under Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure are open and
available to a private citizen and, therefore, simply because there is a right
under Section 154 of the said Code, consequent upon which the police would
investigate, it cannot be said that the right under Section 200 is not available
for purposes of taking recourse.
Who Can Lodge An FIR And What Information Can Be An FIR?
Anyone who knows about the commission of a cognizable offence can file an FIR.
It is not necessary that only the victim of the crime should file an FIR. A
police officer who comes to know about a cognizable offence can file an FIR
himself/herself. FIRs can be registered by a victim, a witness or any other
person who has knowledge of the crime. The Complainant can state the facts about
the offence either in writing or Oral but it is always advisable to give the
Compliant in writing as the same can be of great value in case if the Police
Officer refuses to take the Complaint.
In Hallu vs. State of M.P,
1974 AIR 1936, it was held that the 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 in charge of a
Once the facts about the commission of crime is stated by a person, the police
thereafter read the contents of the FIR to the Complainant in case it is
reported in the oral manner.
You can file an FIR if:
- You are the person against whom the offence has been committed;
- You know yourself about an offence which has been committed;
- You have seen the offence being committed, Witnesses, if any.
The Most Important thing to remember is that to hide the knowledge of a crime is
a bigger Offence
Conditions Required For Recording FIR Under Section 154 Cr.P.C.
The following requirements are to be satisfied to constitute information as First Information Report within the meaning of this section:
- It must be information regarding to the commission of a cognizable
- It must be given to an officer-in-charge of a police station;
- It must be reduced into writing either by the informant (complainant)
and it should be signed by the Informant;
- If it is oral, it must be taken down in writing and read over to the
Informant, who should sign it and it should be recorded according to the
direction of the Informant.
- The substance of information should be entered in the prescribed
register, daily diary, General Diary, otherwise known Station Diary or
Station House Register in the form as the State Government has prescribed
for the above said purpose.
In the absence of these ingredients it would not constitute to First Information
Report as the same are vital ingredients.
First In Point of Time
The information regarding a cognizable offence by whomsoever given which is first in
point of time and on which investigation actually commences is the F.I.R and not the
one recorded thereafter or on reaching the spot. The information need not necessarily
be against a person by name, it may be against an unknown person. In such a case it is
the duty of the Police Officer to find out the real offender during the course of
investigation. The First Information Report is earliest report made to the Police Officer
is held in Soma Bhai v. State of Gujarat.
The following points have to be
- Earliest version of the case is F.I.R.
- It is not open to the officer-in-charge of Police Station to consider
information as FIR according to his discretion.
- If information comes at a police station simultaneously from a number of
persons, the officer-in-charge can use his common sense and record one
statement as the FIR.
- In case of more than one FIR-There could not be more than one FIR in one
case, even if there are many victims of the alleged offence, writing three FIR's in one case is illegal. What is recorded in the first point of time
and which reached the officer-in-charge of police station first is FIR.
Different Types Of Information Which Can Be Considered As FIR Under Section 154 Of Cr.P.C.
Some information may be different in the nature but may be treated as FIR. First
Information Report (FIR) under Section 154 Cr.P.C, the information must be
relating to the commission of a cognizable offence.
Whether information is one
under Section 154 Cr.P.C., is a question of fact and, it is not open to the
Officer-in-charge of a Police Station to treat as such or not. In other words,
if information is really a piece of information disclosing commission of a
cognizable offence it would constitute the FIR of the case whether the Police
Officer reduced it into writing or not.
Cr.P.C., is a question of fact and, it is not open to the Officer-in-charge of a
Police Station to treat as such or not. In other words, if information is really
a piece of information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence it would
constitute the FIR of the case whether the Police Officer reduced it into
writing or not.
Information Which Is Not Considered As FIR
The following facts may not be termed as F.I.R. as the facts of the information,
though may be first in point in time, are bereft of basic requirements necessary
to bring an information within the umbrella of the term F.I.R.
Information Received After The Commencement Of The Investigation:
F.I.R. must be distinguished from information received after the commencement of
the investigation which is covered by Sections 161 and 162, Code of criminal
Procedure. Such information is inadmissible. When a telephonic message merely
conveys fact of killing, then such message cannot be treated as FIR nor would
such message be admissible as substantive evidence. It only amounts to giving of
information as to commission of offence.
In State through C.B.I. V. Vistaria Prakash the honorable Supreme Court decided
that It is true that he did not make any statement that pink colored shirt was
worn by the appellant in the first information report as also in his statement
recorded under Section 161 of the code of Criminal Procedure (for short the
Code'), but the same
in our opinion is not of much significance.
The first information report was lodged immediately after the occurrence took
place, namely at 1400 hours. PW-1 was grievously injured. At that point of time
it was not expected of him that he would be in a position to make a statement
containing minutest details. His statement under Section 161 of the Code must
have also been recorded immediately thereafter.
As cryptic and anonymous oral message received by a police officer or a person
in police station, which does not clearly specify a cognizable offence, cannot
be treated as F.I.R., hence subsequent written complaint by eyewitness to the
S.I. Police in police station would not be hit by Section 162, Cr. P.C. This
subsequent written complaint would amount to FIR.
The dead body of the deceased was brought down from the bus and taken to the
house. The conductor of the bus sent information to the Depot Manager of the
State Road Transport Corporation. The investigating officer was also informed.
report to that effect might have been noted in the general diary but the same
could not have been treated to be an FIR. When information is received by an
officer in charge of a police station, he in terms of the provisions of the Code
was expected to reach the place of occurrence as early as possible.
It was not
necessary for him to take that step only on the basis of a First Information
Report. Information received in regard to commission of a cognizable offence is
not required to be preceded by a First Information Report. Duty of the State to
protect the life of an injured as also an Endeavour on the part of the police
officer to reach the place of occurrence is his implicit duty.
When a murder was committed during communal riots and when information about
riot was already with the police and when F.I.R. about murder was lodged by the
informant afterwards, then it was held by the Apex Court of India that even if
F.I.R. is held to be hit by Sec. 162, Cr. P.C. statement made therein can be
used to contradict the informant. Further, statement under Sec. 162, Cr. P.C.
can also be used to corroborate evidence of other eyewitnesses.
A statement of a
witness or accused made to a police officer after he started the investigation
in no FIR. By no stretch of imagination the statement made by an accused in the
course of investigation shall be taken and treated as FIR as contemplated under
Section 154. Cr. P.C. Lodging of FIR at place of occurrence after the start of
investigation is hit by Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure.
Unless the information lodged in the Police Station before the Station House
Officer as required under Section 154 Cr. P.C., the mere knowledge that a Police
Officer may derive on going to the spot does not make that information the First Information Report.
In Ravishwar Manjhi & Ors. V. State of Jharkhand
Supreme Court held that:
mere information received on phone by police officer without any details as
regards identity of accused or nature of injuries caused by victims as well as
name of culprits may not be treated as FIR.
In Vikram & Ors. V. State of Maharashtra
the honorable Supreme Court decided
that In this case the victim was admitted as an indoor patient in the hospital
on 23.1.1997 and was discharged only on 26.1.1997. In a situation of this
nature, explanation of PW2 and others that they gave priority of the treatment
of the deceased and the accused which occasioned the delay in lodging the First
Information Report and the same having been accepted by two courts below, we do
not find any reason to disagree.
We find no reason to discard the testimony of
P.W.2 who is an independent witness. It may be true that PW2 had informed the
officer in charge of the Police Station on telephone, but the circumstances in
which the said call had to be made has been noticed by us here to before.
The Head Constable states that he had written down the same but then it must
have been a cryptic report and only for the purpose of visiting the scene of
occurrence. He as well as the Investigation Officer did not say that it was a
If, in the aforementioned premise, another First Information Report which was a
detailed one came to be recorded, no exception can be taken to same being
treated as a First Information Report.
Prima facie the cryptic and anonymous oral message conveyed through Telephone
which did not in terms clearly specify a cognizable offence cannot be treated as
a first information report. The mere fact that the information was first in
point of time does not by itself clothe it with the character of F.I.R
Information given to Police telephone or by a person who did not disclose his
and gave a cryptic message. FIR could not recorded on such an information.
Similarly when there was a telephonic message that some person was lying
injured-then it could not be treated as F.I.R.. But, telephone message if given
by a known person who discloses his identity and if: it contains all necessary
facts which constitute an offence and is reduced to writing by Station House.
Officer., can be treated as an F.I.R.
But such information even given by a person who does not disclose his identity
but discloses the name of the offender and the place where the offence is
committed and where the evidence of the crime is being destroyed can be treated
as F.I.R. in view of the circumstances of the case.
A mere anonymous telephonic message at police station that firing had taken
place at a Taxi Stand does not constitute an F.I.R. It must show that a
cognizable offence has been committed.
From time to time, controversy has been raised, as to at what stage the
investigation commences. That has to be considered and examined on the facts of
each case. Especially when the information of a cognizable offence has been
given on telephone.
If the telephonic message is cryptic in nature and the
officer in charge, proceeds to the place of occurrence on 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 has been received by him on
telephonic, shall be deemed to be First Information Report. The object and
purpose of giving such telephone 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 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 any statement made by any person in respect of the said offence
including about the participants, shall be deemed to be a statement made by a
person to the police officer in the course of investigation, covered by
Section 162 of the Code.
That statement cannot be treated as First Information
Report. But any telephonic information about commission of a cognizable offence
irrespective of the nature and details of such information cannot be treated as
First information Report.
A telegram cannot be treated as F.I.R Where messages are transmitted between
Police Offices inter se, the object and purpose in transmitting the message must
be ascertained before any message is labeled as F.I.R. It is only if the object
was to narrate the circumstances of a crime, with a view that the receiving
Police Officer might proceed to investigate thereon, that the message would be
But if the message sent was cryptic because the object was merely to seek
instructions from higher Police Officers or because the object was to send
direction for the police force to reach the place of occurrence immediately or
to merely give information to superior Police Officers about the situation of
law and order, the message would not be F.I.R.
A telephonic message received by police officer or a person in the police
station is only cryptic and anonymous oral message, which, in view of the Court,
may not in terms
clearly specify the cognizable offence and, therefore, cannot be treated as
F.I.R. as defined under Sec. 154, Cr. P.C.
Telephonic Or Telegraphic Message
Information about a crime intimated to the Officer-in-charge of a Police Station
on Telephone can be considered as FIR in some cases where there is possibility
to obtain the signature of the informant and information is authentic one.
Sometimes an information regarding the cognizable offence may be intimated to
the Officer-in-charge of a Police Station by means of a Telephonic or
Telegraphic message, thus such piece of information constitute a valid first
information report. Since it is not possible to obtain the signature of the
informant, on a telephonic or telegraphic message, it has been held in some
cases that such a message cannot be regarded as an FIR under the law.
According to law, telephonic call cannot be the basis of FIR, since it
lacks authenticity and it is not a signed document. There is no guarantee as to
its genuineness. Hence, generally, reliance cannot be placed and investigation
commenced, unless and until it is verified by a preliminary inquiry.
If the telephonic message is given by known person who discloses his identity
and it contains all the required facts which can constitute a cognizable offence
and is reduced into writing by officer-in-charge of Police Station it can be
treated as FIR. The question whether the telephonic message can be treated as
the FIR is to be decided with reference to the facts of each case.
If, in the opinion of officer-in-charge of Police Station receiving telephonic
message or telegram about the commission of cognizable offence, the
circumstances justify action being taken, he should himself lodge first
information on the basis of the telephonic information or telegram. On receipt
of telephonic message of commission of cognizable offence, officer-in-charge of
police station may reduced it into writing and sign it himself in which case it
will become FIR.
According to Section 157 Cr.P.C. an officer-in-charge of Police Station may
proceed with investigation from information received or otherwise i.e. suo
motu. If he does not take any such action, he should make an entry in General
If the information given on telephone is not cryptic and on the basis of that
information the officer incharge is prima facie satisfied about the commission
of a Cognizable offence and he proceed from the police station after recording
such information to investigate such offence then a Statement made by any person
in respect of such offence including about the participant shall be deemed to be
a statement made by a person to the police officer in the course of
investigation covered by Section 162 of the Code.
In Damodar v. State of Rajasthan
, the Apex court held that Coming to the
question whether the message received on telephone would be treated as the FIR,
the D.D., entry shows that unknown person had given an information about a
vehicle hitting the deceased. In order to constitute the FIR, the information
must reveal commission of an act which is a cognizable offence.
As observed by this court in Ramsingh Bavaji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat
question as to at what stage the investigation commences has to be considered
and examined on the facts of each case, especially, when the information of an
alleged cognizable offence has been given on telephone.
information about commission of a cognizable offence, if any, irrespective of
the nature and details of such information cannot be treated as First
Information Report. 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 if any, then it
cannot be said that the information which had been received by him on telephone
shall be deemed to be a FIR.
The object and purpose of giving such telephonic
message is not to lodge the First Information Report but to make the
officer-in-charge of the Police Station to reach the place of occurrence. On the
other hand, if the information given on telephones is not cryptic and on the
basis of that information, the officer incharge 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 any statement
made by any person in respect of the said offence including about the
participants shall be deemed to be a statement made by a person to police
officer in the course of investigation covered by Section 162 of the Code.
Telephonic Message Entered In General Diary Treated As FIR
In State of Assam v. Muhim Barkataki
, held that The information of the
incident was received over telephone message at 7-15 P.M. by the
officer-in-charge of Jorhat Police Station who recorded an entry in the General
Diary being G.D. Entry No. 47, dated November 2, 1978 at 7-15 P.M. The Town
Sub-Inspector Sri P.K. Khatoniar was immediately deputed to make local
investigation on the spot. Sri P.K. Khatoniar made enquiry and investigation
locally at the spot, arrested accused Muhim Barkataki at the spot and returned
to police station.
He then informed the facts of occurrence to the
officer-in-charge of the Police Station who recorded the same under G.D. Entry
No. 50 at 8-10 P.M. On November 3, 1978 at about 7 A.M. one Montu Chandra Dey,
nephew of deceased Nagen dey, lodged ejahar (first information) with Jorhat
Police Station. Thereafter murder and arson cases have been registered against
Muhim Barkataki and Dulu Dutta.
The message received over telephone was an
information relating to commission of cognizable offence and same was entered
into General Diary of the police station as Entry No. 47. On the basis of this
information the investigation of the case was entrusted to the town
Sub-Inspector Sri Prafulla Kumar Khatoniar with the recording of G.D.
47 and the Investigation Officer fairly progressed with the investigating on
that very night. Subsequent information of Montu Chandra Dey on November 3, 1978
are nothing but statements during the course of investigation and as such those
are hit by S. 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It has, therefore, been held
that Ex.5 cannot be recognized as the first information report of the
occurrence. The G.D. Entry No. 47 which is proved is the first information
report of the occurrence.
Telegraphic Message Communicated To The Officer-In-Charge Of A Police Station Can Be Treated As FIR.
There are conflicting views of the High Court on this point. Since Telegraphic
Message is not signed by the sender it cannot be treated as authentic document
and so it cannot be always treated as FIR. After receiving telegraphic
message, the Police Officer must verify the person alleged to have sent it,
really sent it and that he meant to make that report on such verification steps
will be taken to write a proper report under Section 154(1) Cr.P.C.
Anonymous Telephone Message In Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab
, Apex court
held that anonymous telephone message at police station that a fire had taken
place at a taxi stand, does not by itself clothe it with a character of first
information report, merely because the said information was first in point of
time and the said information had been recorded in the daily diary of the Police
Station, by the Police Officer responding to the telephonic call.
Cryptic Telephonic Message In State of U.P. v. P.A. Madhu
, it was held that The telephonic message was given to the police that firing was going on. The
telephonic message was an extremely cryptic one and could not be regarded as a
FIR in any sense of the term. Secondly, assuming that the guy had given the
telephonic message in utter chaos and confusion when shots after shots were
being fired at the deceased, there was no occasion for Guy to have narrated the
entire story of the occurrence. Moreover, such cryptic information on telephone
is of no value at all.
Similarly in the case of Soma Bhai v. State of Gujarat
, it was held the
message given to the Surat Police Station was too cryptic to constitute a first
information report within the meaning of Section 154 of Code and meant to be
only for the purpose of getting further instructions.
Furthermore, the facts
narrated to the P.S.I Patel which was reduced into writing a few minutes later
undoubtedly constitute first information report in point of time made to the
police in which necessary facts were given. In these circumstances, therefore,
we are clearly of the opinion that the telephonic message to the Police Station
at Surat cannot constitute the FIR and the High Court was in error in treating
the FIR lodged in the person as in admissible in evidence.
In Rane Bhavaji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat
, the Apex Court held that from time
to time, controversy has been raised, as to at what stage investigation
commences. That has to be considered and examined and the facts of each case,
especially, when the information of a cognizable offence has been given on
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 nature of the offence itself, then it
cannot be said that the information, which had been received bv 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 basis of that information, the officer-in-charge is prima
facie satisfied about the commission of a cognizable offence and proceeds from
the police station after recording such information to investigate such offence,
then any statement made by any person in respect of the said offence including
about the participants, shall be deemed to be statement made by a person to the
In the course of investigation covered by Section 162 of the Code,
that statement cannot be treated as first information report. But any telephonic
information about commission of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the nature
and details of such information cannot be treated as first information report.
This can be illustrated. In a busy market place a murder is committed.
person in the market including one of the shop owners telephones to nearest
police station informing the officer-in-charge about the matter, without knowing
the details of murder, the accused or the victim. On basis of that information,
the officer-in-charge reaches the place where the offence is alleged to have
In Dhanjaya Chatterjee Alias Dhana v. State of West Bengal
, it was said that the
cryptic telephonic message received at the Police Station from the father of the
deceased had only made police agency run to the place of occurrence and to
record the statement of the mother of the deceased, the investigation commenced
thereafter. In some cases, the information given may be that a person has been
shot at or stabbed.
It cannot be said that in such a situation, the moment the
officer-in-charge leaves the Police Station, the investigation has commenced. In
normal course he has first to find out the person who can give the details of
offence before such officer is expected to collect the evidence in respect of
the said offence.
In the present case, the Investigating Officer having received the telephonic
message immediately reached the hospital and he first recorded the statement of
the brother of the deceased. This statement must be treated as FIR. There is no
dispute in that statement the name of the appellant was mentioned by the brother
of the deceased and details of the occurrence as disclosed by him in court were
stated by him.
This is apparent because during the course of cross-examination
of the brother of the deceased, his attention has not been drawn to his
statement recorded by the I.O. saying that he did not name the appellant as the
assailant of his brother during his statement to the I.O. It is held that the
witness brother of the deceased immediately after the occurrence made a
statement before the I.O. and named the appellant as the person who gave a knife
blow in the chest of the deceased.
According to us, the Sessions Judge as well
as the High Court was in error in treating, the cryptic message given on the
telephone by the Head Constable to the officer-in-charge of Police Station as
An Authentic Information
In Moni Mohan v. Emp.
the honorable court decided that Authentic information is
an information that must be capable of being traced to a specific individual who
would take responsibility for the same so that if the information subsequently
turned-out to be false, the informant could be proceeded against.
FIR Can Be Of Hearsay Action
FIR can be a hearsay action of the occurrence of a crime. The rule contained
under Section 60 of Evidence Act is that hearsay evidence is inadmissible, but
the FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. is not evidence.
Information Of Mere Assembly Of Some Persons:
Mere confidential report received by the police that some bad characters have
assembled at a particular place is not F.I.R and is not adequate for
registration of a cognizable offence.
Vague, Indefinite And Unauthorized Information:
No piece of information which is vague, indefinite and unauthorized can be
recorded as F.I.R. merely because it was received first in point of time. It
must relate to
the commission of a cognizable offence.
A cryptic message meant of being an appeal for immediate relief is not an F.I.R.
Mere information recorded in general diary that one student has stabbed another
is not F.I.R.
Where messages are transmitted between Police Offices inter se, the object and
purpose in transmitting the message must be ascertained before any message is
labeled as F.I.R. It is only in the F.I.R. to narrate the circumstances of a
crime, with a view that the receiving Police officer might proceed to
investigate thereon, that the message would be F.I.R.
But if the message sent
was cryptic because the object was merely to seek instructions from higher
Police Officers or because the object was to send direction for the police force
to reach the place of occurrence immediately or to merely give information to
superior Police Officers about the situation of law and order, the message would
not be F.I.R.
The mere entry in the records of Railway Protection force (R.P.F.) is not an
Few More Instances::
In these points it has been declared that the information received on different
stages is not First Information Report:
- Where an anonymous caller rang-up the Police Station and merely stated
that fire had taken place at Ludhiana Taxi Stand, it was held that the mere fact
of this information, first in point of time did not clothe it with the character
of first information report as the information did not in terms clearly specify
a cognizable offence.
- If the information that was given at the Police Station, though first in
point of time, but did not disclose commission of cognizable offence it was
held that the said information could not be treated as FIR of the case.
- Whether the first cryptic and any anonymous telephonic call did not
clearly specify the commission of a cognizable offence, it is not FIR.
- Similarly, where someone gave a cryptic telephonic message to the police
station that a fire had taken place without disclosing the commission of a
cognizable offence and the S.I. of Police then proceeded to the spot and
took a detailed statement, disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, it
was held by the Apex Court that the subsequent statement was rightly treated
as FIR of the case.
- A statement casually given by an informant to a Sub-Inspector is not
- A confidential information received by the police that some bad
characters were assembled at a particular place is not FIR.
- An information first given to a police officer-in-charge of a police
station cannot be considered as FIR, if it is very vague and indefinite and
the police officer is thereby necessitated to collect more information
before starting investigation in such situation further information given to
him would be more appropriately treated as FIR.
- If an officer-in-charge of police station receives information from a
person who came to police station that there was a shooting incident in the
house of Z', it is not FIR. The police officer should enter that report in
the Daily Diary and go to the house of Z' and record a statement there. If
that statement discloses a cognizable offence, that will become the FIR and
not the first report because the first report is very vague and does not
affirm the commission of a cognizable offence.
- A vague confidential information given by a doctor to a police
officer-in-charge of a police station without disclosing the name of the
informer cannot become the basis of the FIR.
- A doctor in a hospital informing the police about the arrival of an
injured person in the hospital cannot be considered as FIR, since the
doctor's information is vague and does not disclose any cognizable offence
and other particulars it cannot be considered as the FIR. No case can be
registered on it. The information should be registered in the Daily Diary
and the officer-in-charge of the police station should go to the hospital,
record the statement of the injured then and there get a case registered on
such statement. The second statement made by the injured person becomes the
basis of the FIR and not of the doctor.
- Any statement made to the police officer after starting the
investigation will not be considered as the FIR. In other words, FIR cannot
be recorded on the basis of information obtained during an investigation. It
is forbidden by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. Section 162 clause (1) explains that no
statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an
investigation under this chapter of Cr.P.C. i.e. information to the police, etc.
and statements to the police not to be signed, use of statements in evidence.
Evidentiary Value Of FIR
The Statement to the police officer or written Complaint which has b ty type="i"een
converted to FIR is not substantive piece of evidence. This is because it is not
made during trial, it is not given on oath nor it is tested by cross
If the person giving the statement appears before the court at the
time of Trial then the Statement can be used to corroborate or to contradict as
per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. FIR can be used only for
corroborating or contradicting only the Complainant and nobody else. The F.I.R
can have better corroborative value if it is recorded before there is time and
opportunity to embellish of before the informants memory fails.
unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR gives rise to the suspicion which puts the
Court on guard to look at the possible motive and the explanation in the
trustworthiness of the prosecution story.
In the circumstances where the FIR is given by the Accused themselves then it
cannot be possibly used for corroboration or contradiction because the Accused
cannot be a prosecution witness and would rarely offer himself to be a defense
witness under section 315 of the Cr.P.C Also if the F.I.R is a confessional
statement then it cannot be proved against the accused as a statement made to
the Police officer is not admissible, but if the FIR is non-confessional then it
can be admissible in evidence against the accused under section 21 of The
Evidence Act or can be used to show conduct of the Accused under section 8 of
The Evidence Act.
The above stated is a rare circumstance and in most cases FIR
can be used only to contradict or corroborate the person giving it. There may be
cases where the context can be put to use if omission of important facts is
affecting the probabilities of the case.
FIR can be substantial evidence in the following cases:
Dying Declaration when a person deposing about the cause dies i.e a dying
declaration. In such cased FIR will become admissible under section 33(1) of The
When the injuries are being caused in the presence of the police officer in
Police Station and the injured makes a statement to the officer stating that the
accused was injuring him.
Contents Of FIR
The FIR must contain as far as possible the following points:
- Whether the Informant is an eye-witness or hearsay witness.
- The nature of the cognizable offence.
- The name and detailed description of the accused person (his colour,
height, approximate age, features, clothing, distinctive marks on his face
- The name and identity of the victim of the crime.
- The date and time of the occurrence.
- The place where the crime was committed.
- The motive for committing the crime.
- How the crime was committed (description of the actual occurrence of the
crime, the part played by the each accused and the weapon used by him).
- The name and address of the witnesses of the crime.
- The date and time of the occurrence.
- The place where the crime was committed.
- The motive for committing the crime.
- How the crime was committed (description of the actual occurrence of the
crime, the part played by the each accused and the weapon used by him)
- The name and address of the witnesses of the crime.
- The articles taken away by the accused.
- What traces left behind by the accused, any articles belonging to the
accused such as footwear, footprints, finger prints etc.).
- The description of the culprits should be given as far as possible in
detail if the FIR is registered on the statement of eye witnesses. A mistake
or doubtful identity may spoil the case.
- Whether the Informant is an eye-witness or hearsay witness.
Second FIR Lodged On Closure Of Investigation On FIRst FIR
Two FIRs In Respect Of Same Incident
In Jasjit Singh Bhasin v. State of Punjab
the honorable court decided that two FIRs cannot be registered in same set of facts. There cannot be two FIRs against
the same accused in respect of the same case. But when there are rival versions
in respect of the same episode, they would normally take shape of two different
FIRs and investigation can be carried by the same investigating agency. The
subsequent registration of the FIR on the basis is of an application under
Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. is uncalled for.
Where the applicant wants to add
something by way of giving additional facts of the incident and feels that
something is lacking in the previous FIR, it is always open for him to say so in
his statement before the police during the course of investigation. This alone
will not entitle him to register a second FIR regarding the same incident
implicating the same accused.105 Registration of second FIR by Police on basis
of complaint does not amount to abuse of process of Law.
Krishna was a Class I Officer in the Karnataka Administrative Service. An FIR
was lodged against him under Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) in respect of check period from August 1, 1978 to
August 24, 1989. This was alleged that he had assets disproportionate to his
known sources of income. On August 24, 1989 the Investigating Officer submitted
a B report (closure of the investigation) which was accepted by the Special
Judge who directed that the officer's properties were to be released.
On July 25, 1995 another FIR was filed against the officer in respect of the
period August 1, 1978 to July 25, 1995 under the same provisions of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and making similar allegations. The officer filed a
petition U/S. 482 of Cr.P.C. in the Karnataka High Court. He contended that the
inclusion of the same check the period i.e. from August 1, 1978 to; August
24,1989 in the second FIR was not proper and ; once, the FIR should be quashed.;
The High Court dismissed the contention and held that le second FIR was valid.
Aggrieved by this, the officer filed an appeal in the Supreme hurt. The Supreme
Court held that:
There is no provision in the criminal Procedure Code or the PCA which debars
le filing of an FIR and investigating into the alleged offences merely because
there was an FIR in respect of an earlier period. Thus, the second FIR was
- However the results of the earlier investigation cannot be totally
ignored by the Investigating Agency.
- The assets, which, in the earlier investigation, were valued cannot be
valued at a
higher value in the second investigation unless any positive ground is made out
for such revaluation.
Registration of information as second FIR in regard to same incident is not
permissible. Earlier FIR filed by petitioner in morning against respondent.
Second FIR about same incident filed in afternoon on same day by respondent
Respondent's statement that petitioner pelted stones on him
but he took treatment at home instead of going to doctor. Facts and
circumstances indicate that second FIR as fabricated and filed to counter blast
earlier FIR. Proceedings, if continued on basis of fabricated second FIR would
result in abuse of Court's process. Therefore second FIR is liable to be
Value Of More Than One F.I.R.
Where there are three different versions, the earliest statement should be
produced to enable the court to arrive at the real truth in the case.
Where two persons gave information about the same occurrence to two different
police officers at different places, the one which was a little later in point
of time, need not be excluded on the ground that it made during investigation,
but must be regarded as an independent F.I.R.
Filing of second complaint based on same facts as the first one not to be
treated as FIR and fresh investigation cannot be permitted.
In case of two F.I.R., the earliest in time is to be treated as F.I.R., as the
subsequent one is hit by Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure. But where an
informant give two statement at the police station at different times, the
subsequent statement cannot be accepted as F.I.R. as contemplated by Section
154, Code of Criminal Procedure.
An undecorated First Information Report is of a great value because it is the
version of the incident gives at the first available opportunity by the
informant and shows on what material the investigation commenced and what was
the story then told. An F.I.R. recorded without any loss of time is likely to be
free form embroideries, exaggerations and without anybody intermeddling with it
and polluting and adulterating the same with lies.
The purpose of F.I.R. is to
obtain the earliest account of a cognizable offence, before there is an
opportunity for the circumstance to be forgotten and embellished. It is well
settled that F.I.R. is not a substantive piece of evidence and can be used to
corroborate or contradict the statement of the maker thereof. It is also equally
established that trustworthiness of the prosecution story can also be judged
form the F.I.R. Besides First Information Report is relevant as it may be a part
of the res-gestae
In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nahar Singh(dead)
, it was held that purpose of
recording FIR is to set the investigating agency in motion. Therefore the main
purpose of F.I.R. is to give information of a cognizable offence to the police
and set them in motion. The value of F.I.R. must always depend on the facts and
circumstances of a given case. The importance of the F.I.R. lies in the fact
that it is a statement made soon after the occurrence. Hence the memory of the
informant is fresh and it is unlikely that he had opportunities of fabrication.
The principal object of F.I.R. is only to make a complaint to the police to set
the criminal law into motion. It's secondary though equally important; object
is to obtain early information of an alleged criminal activity to record the
circumstances before there is time for them to be forgotten or embellished.
The value attached to an FIR differs from case to case and no generalizations
can be applied. Thus, where a telephonic message only conveying the fact of
killing was given, it only amounted to giving of information as to commission of
offence and could not be used as substantive evidence.
The issuance of a notice by the Magistrate to the informant at the time of
consideration of the final report is a must.
What Would Not Amount To F.I.R?
- A report or statement recorded after commencement of investigation
- Reports not recorded immediately but after questioning of witnesses
- Reports recorded after several days of development
- Cryptic messages
- Complaint to Magistrate
- Telephonic information received without any details
- Telegram cannot be treated as a F.I.R but an email can be treated as
- Messages transmitted between officers
- Hearsay information of occurrence of an act
The Rule is that under section 60 of The Evidence Act is that hearsay evidence
is inadmissible but since F.I.R is under section 154 of the Cr. P.C its hearsay
information can be taken as it is meant to help the Police in investigation.
Investigation need not have personal knowledge of the incident but a casual
statement cannot be a F.I.R as it has been held in Vishwanath V/S State of
What Is A Cognizable Offence
A cognizable offence is one in which the police may arrest a person without
warrant. They are authorized to start investigation into a cognizable case on
their own and do not require any orders from the court to do so. The term
Cognizable Offences are defined in Section 2 (c) of the Cr. P.C. 1973 in which
the police has the power to make an arrest without a warrant in such offences
which are serious in nature, and thus the aim is to prevent the culprit or
accused of harming others. The offences which fall under the cognizable
offences have already been mentioned in the first schedule of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
What Is A Non- Cognizable Offence
A non-cognizable offence is an offence in which a police officer has no
authority to arrest without warrant. The police cannot investigate such an
offence without the court's permission.
Why Should The Statement Always Be Signed
The Complainant should always sign the F.I.R and put the date and state that
he/she is aware of the statement and the same is as per narration. If at all the
statement is not as per their narration the same should also be written that the
facts informed are not as per narration. It should be noted that refusal to sign
the F.I.R is an offence under section 180 of the Indian Penal Code.
Where Should The F.I.R Be Filed?
The Complaint has to be addressed to the Senior Police Station of the Police
Station in which the Complainant resides or in the area in which the offense has
to be committed. It is the duty of the Senior Police Inspector to assign the
Complaint to a police officer and the assigned Police Officer is under a duty to
reduce the content in writing and register the F.I.R and as per section 154(2)
it is mandatory to give the Complainant a free copy. It is the statutory
obligation of the officer to register the Complaint and he does not have
prerogative or option to verify the credibility of the Information as a
Condition Precedent. Disclosure of a Cognizable offense is enough.
after registration of the F.I.R has to make a note in the Station Diary
maintained in the Police Station. Women are at the Liberty to lodge the
Complaint in the nearest Police Station. In a civil matter, a contempt petition
can be filed before the High Court against the officer who refused to lodge an
FIR is stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of Uttar
case and has held that the Police must register FIR where the complaint
discloses a cognizable offence.
What Is Zero FIR Or Non FIR?
Whenever a police officer in charge lodges an FIR but believes that he does not
have the jurisdiction in the case to investigation. Such an FIR which will be
transferred to the other police station would be called a zero number FIR.
As regards missing persons, as long as the information is that the person is
missing, or went missing (bhag gai), no cognizable offence is made out and
therefore no FIR is lodged. In this context, different procedures are being
followed by different states. In certain states, Zero FIR is lodged. In
certain others, Non FIR is registered. Only in very few states, like Tamil
Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, Proper FIR is lodged, investigation caused with regular
case Diaries. In majority of cases of missing persons, across the country,
regular FIR is never registered and, therefore, no investigation is caused as
per the code of Criminal Procedure.
What Are The Things A Complainant Should Not Do:
The Complainant should Never file a false complaint or give wrong information to
the police or else he/she can be prosecuted under law for giving wrong
information or for misleading the police under Section 203, Indian Penal Code
Never exaggerate or distort facts.
Never make vague or unclear statements.
What Is The Language In Which The Complaint Should Be Given?
The Complaint can be given in the language which is best known to the
Complainant. On receipt of the Complaint the officer if the Complaint is not in
the local language the officer has to translate the Complaint, read it to the
Complainant in the language which is understood by him and only then registers.
It is mandatory that the Complaint is as per the Complainants narration and a
translator should be called if necessary.
What Is The Time Limit To Give A Complaint?
The FIR must be filed invariably promptly, expeditiously and without wasting any time.
There are circumstances where some concession of the time must be given in filing the
FIR but there must be cogent reasons for reasonable delay in filing. The Judges with lot of
wisdom and experience use their discretion judiciously and in the interest of Justice in
each and every case. However no possible duration of time can be fixed for applying the
test of reasonableness in each case.
The delay in lodging the FIR as such is not fatal in law
to the prosecution if it is substantiated with the factual difficulties encountered by the
persons lodging report. There is no limit for lodging the FIR but it is expected that FIR
should be filed without any undue delay. If any FIR is filed after some delay the
Complainant has to explain the delay in a plausible or acceptable manner. Section 486 of
the Cr.P.C states about Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of Limitation
What Is The Next Step After Filing An FIR?
The case is not serious in nature;
The police feel that there is not enough ground to investigate. However, the
police must record the reasons for not conducting an investigation and in the
latter case must also inform the Complainant under Section 157, Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973.
What Is The Next Step After Filing An FIR?
The police conduct investigation, which may include arrests. Once the
investigation has been concluded the police will record all their findings in
charge sheet. If it is deemed that there is enough proof on the charge sheet the
case goes to court.
Can Police Register FIR In A Civil Dispute?
Under normal circumstances, FIR cannot be registered about any civil dispute
because section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code under which the FIR is registered
clearly says that police are duty bound to register a complaint about a
cognizable Offence. A civil wrong (tort) cannot be normally be called an offence
but sometimes these civil disputes lead to the commission of an offence. For
example the demarking line between Breach of contract and Criminal breach of
trust is very dim. Under such circumstances, if the civil dispute oversteps the
boundaries of criminal offence, a FIR can certainly be registered.
What Happens If Police Officer Refuses To Register The Offense?
The Complainant has to approach the Senior officials and give a written
representation. Senior Officer means Superintendent in Rural areas and the
Commissioner in the Commissionarate i.e the City area as per the provisions of
section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. It is mandatory to take acknowledgement of the
representation. Even after the representation if the offense is not registered
within 8 days then the Complainant has to approach the magistrate by filing the
Complaint and seek orders under section 156(3) of the Criminal praying direction
to the Concern Police to register fir.
While filing the Complaint it is essential that the Complaint has all the
annexures of the evidences and the representations. The representations must be
the one which have the acknowledgement. Along with the Complaint it is essential
that an Affidavit is annexed by the Complainant stating that the Police has
neglected that duty and the Complainant has no alternate remedy. The Affidavit
should also state that no FIR has been registered in any place regards to the
same subject matter.
The Magistrate on hearing the Complainant can direct registration of M.E.C.R
which cannot be denied by the police and the Police has to report to the
magistrate within stipulated time. It is Sakiri Vasu V/S State of U.P there are
clear directions with respect to guidelines to be followed while dealing with
the grievance. The said position has also been confirmed by the Supreme Court in
N. Subramaniam V/s Janaki on 20/3/2020. Apart from these there are a Catena of
Judgments. In case the Police Officer does not follow the directions then show
cause notice shall be issued to the officer and on hearing him if the Magistrate
feels that the Officer has neglected his duty then Contempt Proceedings can be
In the case where the Magistrate feels that the case is not appropriate for
issuing directions under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C then the Complainants
statement i.e verification can be taken and the Magistrate can issue process or
postpone the issuance and direct the Police to conduct inquiry under section 202
of the Cr.P.C. After the inquiry report is submitted then the Magistrate after
application of mind can proceed to issue process or dismiss the Complaint as per
his adjudication but he cannot switch the investigation under section 156(3)of
In case the Complainant is not satisfied then he has separate remedies
Difference Between An FIR and A Police Complaint
The difference between a first information report and a police complaint is that
an FIR relates to the cognizable offence whereas a police complaint can be filed
for both non-cognizable and cognizable class of offences.
A complaint is to be given to a magistrate either orally or in writing, whereas
the first information report is lodged at the police station nearby the place of
commission of crime.
According to s. 2(d) Cr.P.C, a complaint is the allegation of fact which
constitutes a complaint. Further, a complainant and a first informant need not
be the same person.
When an FIR is registered the police can arrest the accused. In a Complaint only
upon directions under section 156(3) the accused can be arrested but if there is
an inquiry under section 202 then there can be no arrest.
The general rule is that any person having knowledge of the commission of an
offence can file a complaint, even though the concerned person is not personally
interested or affected by the offence, except in cases of offences relating to
marriage, defamation etc.