FIRST INFORMATION REPORT: an ANALYTICAL STUDY National Law University Delhi (India) 2019

Home , First information report

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT: AN ANALYTICAL STUDY

Dissertation submitted in part fulfilment for the requirement of the

Degree of

LL.M

Submitted by Supervised by

SHEETAL RANI Prof. (Dr.) JAGBIR S. DAHIYA

National Law University Delhi (India) 2019

DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

I hereby declare that the dissertation entitled “FIRST INFORMATION REPORT: AN ANALYTICAL STUDY” submitted at is the outcome of my own work carried out under the supervision of Prof. (Dr.) Jagbir S. Dahiya, Professor, National Law University, Delhi.

I further declare that to the best of my knowledge the dissertation does not contain any part of work, which has not been submitted for the award of any degree either in this University on any other institutions without proper citation.

Sheetal Rani

Place: New Delhi 61 LLM 18

Date: 22nd May 2019 National Law University, Delhi

CERTIFICATE OF SUPERVISOR

This is to certify that the work reported in the LL.M dissertation entitled “First

Information Report: An Analytical Study,” submitted by Sheetal

Rani at National Law University, Delhi is a bona fide record of her original work carried out under my supervision.

Dr. Jagbir S. Dahiya

Place: New Delhi Professor

Date: 22nd May 2019 National Law University, Delhi

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to express my most sincere regards and gratitude to my respected supervisor, Prof. (Dr.) Jagbir S. Dahiya, for his constant help, guidance and encouragement throughout the tenure of this dissertation. His valuable suggestions and discussions have been instrumental to the success of this work. This work would not have been possible without his guidance. I further wish to express my gratitude to the entire NLU-Delhi family especially Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh (Vice- Chancellor, National Law University, Delhi) and Prof. (Dr.) G.S. Bajpai (Registrar, National Law University, Delhi) for providing all the facilities and infrastructure required for completion of this research. I would also like to thank the Library staff of National Law University, Delhi for their constant support.

I extend my heartfelt thanks to all my friends for their constant inputs and guidance in this endeavour. Special thanks to my parents and family members who have always supported in all my endeavours. I acknowledge and thank the scholars whose work is used for completion of this dissertation.

SHEETAL RANI

61LLM2018

iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Report

Anr. Another

Art. Article

Bom Bombay

Cal Calcutta

Cr Criminal

Cri Criminal

CrLJ/ Cr.L.J. Criminal Law Journal

Cr.P.C Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Del Delhi

DLT Delhi Law Times

Ed. Edition

FIR First Information Report

Guj Gujarat

GLH Gujarat Law Herald

GLR Gujarat Law Reporters

HP Himachal Pradesh

IEA Indian Evidence Act, 1872

ILR Indian Law Reports

IPC Indian Penal Code

Ker Kerala

M.P/ MP Madhya Pradesh

Pat Patna

PC Privy Council

Raj Rajasthan

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reports

Sec./S Section

UP Uttar Pradesh

V. Versus

Vol. Volume

LIST OF CASES

1. Abdul v. State of M.P. AIR 1954 SC 31. 2. Agnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar 1966 Cri LJ 100. 3. Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh (2003) 2 SCC 518. 4. Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2013 SCC Online SC 310. 5. Animireddi v. Public Prosecutor (2008) 5 SCC 368. 6. Apren v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1(5). 7. Asahram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007) 11 SCC 164. 8. Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 336. 9. Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 6 SCC 593. 10. Bhagar Ram v State of Himachal Pradesh 1989 CrLJ 2520 (HP). 11. Bijoy Singh & anr. v. State of Bihar (2002) 9 SCC 147. 12. Chandra v. State of U.P. AIR (1971) 3SCC 983. 13. Court on its Own Motion through Mr. Ajay Chaudhary v. State 2010 SCC Online Del 4309. 14. Dhananjay v. State (2007) 14 SCC 768. 15. Dhanpat Singh v. Emperor AIR 1917 Pat 625. 16. Dharma v. State (1973) 1 SCC 537. 17. Dilawar Singh v. State 2007 CrLJ 4709 (SC). 18. Hallu & others v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1974 SCC (Cri) 462. 19. Hasib v. State of Bihar AIR 1972 SC 283. 20. Hem Raj & anr. v. State (2003) 12 SCC 241. 21. Jagannath Narayan Nikam v. State of Maharashtra 1995 CrLJ 795(Bom). 22. Jayantibhai Lalubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat 1992 Cri LJ 2377. 23. Kirender Sarkar v. State of Assam (2009) 12 SCC 342. 24. Krishna v. State (2003) 7 SCC 56. 25. Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana 1977 SCC (Cr) 613. 26. Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2013 SCC Online SC 999. 27. Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 464.

28. Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab, (1991) 4 SCC341. 29. Mani v. State 1987 Cri LJ 1965. 30. Manimohan v. Emperor (1931) 58 Cal 1312. 31. Munna Singh Tomar v. State of M.P and others 1987 SCC Online MP 190. 32. Nankhu Singh & anr. v. State of Bihar (1972) 3 SCC 590. 33. Nazir v. King Emperor. AIR 1945 PC 18. 34. Nisar Ali v. State of U.P. AIR 1957SCR 657. 35. Panchanan Mondal v. State 1971 Cri LJ 875. 36. Pandurang v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1955 CrLJ 572. 37. Patai v. State of UP (2010) 4 SCC 429. 38. Ponnasamy v. State (2008) 5 SCC 587. 39. R.P. Kapoor v State of Punjab (1960) 3 SCR 388. 40. Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Others (2006) 2 SCC 677. 41. Ravi Kumar v. State of Punjab (2005) 9 SCC 315. 42. Rokad Singh v. State of M.P.1992 SCC Online MP 140. 43. Sahebrao v. State 2006 CrLJ 2881 (SC). 44. Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 2 SCC 409. 45. Satpal v. State (1995) SCC (Cri) 1039. 46. Shankar v. State of U.P. (1975) 3 SCC 851. 47. Shivshankar Singh v. State of Bihar (2012) 1 SCC 130. 48. Silak Ram v. State 2007 CrLJ 3760. 49. Soma v. State of Gujarat (1975) 4 SCC 257. 50. State v. Shreekant (2004) 8 SCC 133. 51. State v. Maharaj Singh (2004) 13 SCC 165. 52. State of Andhra Pradesh v. V.V Panduranga Rao (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 394. 53. State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Cri) 426. 54. State of West Bengal v. S.N. Basak (1963) 2 SCR 52. 55. State of Bombay v. Rusy Mistry 1960 Cri LJ 532. 56. Sudhansu Sekhar v. State (2002) 10 SCC 743. 57. Sujoy Sen v State of West Bengal 2007 CrLJ 3727. 58. Surajit Sarkar v. State of West Bengal 2012 SCC Online SC 999. 59. Suresh Pandurang Tigare v. State of Maharashtra 1997 CrLJ 157(Bom). 60. Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab 1993 Supp (1) SCC 208. 61. T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181.

vii

62. Tapindar Singh v. State 1970 CrLJ 1415. 63. Tara Chand v. State of Haryana (1971) 2 SCC 579. 64. Thevar v. State of Tamil Nadu (1973) 3 SCC 680. 65. Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and others (2004) 13 SCC 292. 66. Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India and Another 2016 SCC Online SC 914.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.No. TITLE PAGE No.

DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE i

CERTIFICATE OF SUPERVISOR ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND iv-v ABBREVIATIONS LIST OF CASES vi-viii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1-5

1.1 STAEMENT OF PROBLEM 2

1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2-3

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 4

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 4

1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 4

1.6 CHAPTERIZATION 4-5

MEANING, OBJECTIVES AND 6-10 CHAPTER 2 IMPORTANCE OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT (FIR) 2.1 MEANING OF FIRST INFORMATION 6-7 REPORT

2.2 CONTENTS OF FIR 8

2.3 OBJECT AND IMPORTANCE OF FIR 9-10

2.4 CONDITIONS OF VALIDITY OF AN FIR 10

2.5 MULTIPLE AND CROSS FIRs 11

2.6 IS FIR A PUBLIC DOCUMENT 12-16

CHAPTER 3 LODGING OF FIRST 17-24 INFORMATION REPORT

3.1 WHEN AND HOW FIR CAN BE 17-18 LODGED

3.2 WHO CAN LODGE FIR 18-19

3.3 TELEPHONIC INFORMATION: FIR OR 19-20 NOT

3.4 REFUSAL TO REGISTER FIR- 20-22 REMEDIES AVAILABLE

3.5 IS POLICE OFFICER BOUND TO 22-24 REGISTER FIR?

CHAPTER 4 DELAY IN LODGING FIR 25-29

4.1 IMPORTANCE OF PROMT REPORTING 25-26 OF FIR

4.2 DELAY IN REPORTING 26-27

4.3 DELAYED FIR AND APPROACH OF 27-28 COURT

4.4 NEED OF PRAGMATIC APPRAOCH 28-29

CHAPTER 5 EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF FIR 30-36

5.1 USE OF FIR FOR CONTRADICTION 31-32 AND CORROBORATION PURPOSES

5.2 FIR AS DYING DECLARATION 33-34

5.3 FIR AS AN ADMISSION OR 34-36 DISCOVERY STATEMENT

CHAPTER 6 QUASHING OF FIR 37-41

6.1 QUASHING OF FIR ON THE BASIS OF 40 COMPROMISE

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION AND 42-45 SUGGESTIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY xii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Whenever an offence is committed it is necessary to report it to the concerned authorities so that the offender can be punished according to the law. An offence is considered to be a wrong against the society so it becomes duty of the state to punish the culprit to maintain the law and order in the society. According to Indian criminal justice system offences are classified into two broad categories i.e. cognizable offences and non-cognizable offences. In case of cognizable offence, the police officer is empowered to arrest the accused without warrant1 and can investigate the case without order of the Magistrate. But he can do so if some information regarding the commission of cognizable offence is received by him.

Section 154 of Code of Criminal procedure,1973 (Cr.P.C.) authorises the police officer to record the information when commission of a cognizable offence is reported to him by the informant. When the police officer records the information provided, the document called First Information Report (FIR). It is necessary to lodge FIR so that the police can initiate the investigation to collect evidences. Though the receipt and recording of FIR. by the police is not a pre- condition to the setting in motion of a criminal investigation.2

The police officer is statutorily duty bound to register the information regarding the commission of cognizable offence but there are variety of instances where the police refuses to record the information which results into denial of justice to the victim. In case, the PO refuses to record the information the informant is provided with certain other remedies like the Superintendent of Police and the Magistrate can be approached but this causes unnecessary wastage of time and money of the informant. Further, it may shake the faith of the informant and the victim in the criminal justice system, which is fatal to the law and order in the society. The information recorded by the police

1 Section 2(c), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 2 Nazir v. King Emperor., AIR 1945 PC 18; Apren v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1(5) : (1973) 3 SCC 114 : 1973 CrLJ 185.

officer has evidentiary value but that is very limited. Quashing of FIR. by the High Court is another instance which hampers the right of the victim to get justice. Present study will be focused upon detailed analysis of First Information Report and its significance in criminal justice system. Further, the evidentiary value of FIR. and the power of the High Court to quash it will be studied thoroughly with the help of recent judicial trends.

1.1 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

An offence is considered to be a crime against the society at large. It is the duty of the State to curb crime rate and to make the society a good place to live. There may be certain factors which affects the administration of justice to the victim against whom an offence has been committed. Refusal to register a FIR by the police, quashing of FIR by the High Courts in genuine case and delay in lodging first information report are some core issues which affects the justice delivery. An in-depth study is required to be done to understand the factors leading to delayed lodging of FIR, refusal to lodge it and its quashing so that some improvement can be made to enhance the quality of justice delivery system.

1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

First information report is a document in which information regarding commission of a cognizable offence is recorded by the officer-in-charge of a police station. Any person who is aware of the commission of a cognizable offence can approach the police for the registration of first information report. Even the police officer on his own can register the information related to such offence and initiate the investigation without an order of the Magistrate. The importance of FIR lies in its being first record of the incident. Further, the objective of FIR is to inform the police about the incident and to set the criminal law in motion. It is settled law that registration of FIR is not a pre- condition for the investigation but there has to be some information regarding the commission. Legislative intent of using the expression “shall” clearly puts a duty upon the police officer concerned to register FIR as and when some information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence is received. Moreover, the fact that the attitude of

police regarding registration of FIR even in the instances of commission of cognizable offences is not like that as it should be. Generally, the police are reluctant to record the information related to a cognizable offence.

Refusal to register FIR not only results into hiding of commission of a cognizable offence rather and more importantly it amounts to denial of access to justice to the informant and to the victim. It is rightly pointed out in the article “BURKING OF CRIME BY REFUSAL TO REGISTER FIR IN COGNIZABLE OFFENCES”3 authored by Vageshwari Deswal that criminal investigative process is repressed due to failure to get the information relating to a crime recorded. ‘Burking’ here means a term related to a crime which means to douse or supress quietly. According to the article it is a general notion that the competence and productivity of the government and police is measured on the basis of reduction of crime during their tenure, this notion might be the fact behind refusal to register FIR so that the records indicate less crime. Non- recording of FIR in cognizable cases could be the best way to manipulate the crime rates. This practice is no doubt reducing the trust of the people in the criminal justice system, which is harmful for a welfare society.

There are certain aspects relating to the first information report like refusal to register FIR, delay in lodging FIR on the part of informant, its evidentiary value and quashing of FIR by the High Court while exercising its inherent or extraordinary powers. All these aspects require a deep analysis to understand the significance of first information report. Number of commentaries and books such as “Princep’s commentary on The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (19th ed. 2008) Vol.I”, “Sohoni’s Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (12th ed.) Vol. II”, “The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (1st ed. 2010) Vol. I by S.P. Sengupta”, “Durga Das Basu’s Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (5th ed. 2014) Vol. I” extensively deals with all these crucial aspects of FIR through cases decided over a period of time. Apart from these R P Kathuria’s Supreme Court on Criminal Law (1950-2013) (8th ed. 2004) Vol.4 have provided a plethora of Supreme Court judgments through which the law has developed to fulfil the needs of the people according to the time and requirement.

3 Vageshwari Deswal, Burking of Crime by Refusal to Register FIR in Cognizable Offences, Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 361-375 (July-September 2013) Vol. 55.

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

• To analyse First Information Report. • To determine the uses of First Information report. • To study the impact of delay in lodging First Information Report. • To study the impact of First Information report on decision of the court. • To understand the situations which can lead to quashing of First Information Report.

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• Whether delay in lodging First Information Report affects the ultimate decision of the court? • What evidentiary value FIR has? • Whether the police is duty bound to register First Information report in cognizable cases?

1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research will be conducted through doctrinal methods and material will be collected through primary sources such as books, statutes, case laws and articles etc.

1.6 CHAPTERIZATION

The research work is divided into seven chapters as follows:

Chapter 1 deals with the introduction part and contains the statement of problem, literature review, objectives of the study, research questions and the research methodology.

Chapter 2 contains the meaning, objectives and importance of first importance report. In this chapter detailed study of the nature of FIR, its contents is done with the help of decided cases.

Chapter 3 is devoted to lodging of first information report. In this chapter study of the duty of police officer to register FIR and the remedies available in case of refusal along with the significance of telephonic information as first information report is done.

Chapter 4 deals with delay in lodging first information report. In this chapters the factors leading to delay in lodging FIR and the effect of such delay is studied.

Chapter 5 consists of evidentiary value of first information report. In this chapter in- depth study of evidentiary value contained by FIR and its uses is done.

Chapter 6 accommodates with quashing of first information report. This chapter deals with the inherent powers of the High Court to quash FIR.

Chapter 7 deals with the conclusion and suggestions.

CHAPTER 2

MEANING, OBJECTIVES AND IMPORTANCE OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

2.1 MEANING OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT (FIR)

The information describing the commission of an offence recorded under section 1541 of Cr.P.C is the FIR, on the basis of this information investigation is commenced.2 In Soma v. State of Gujarat3 it was held that the earliest information given to the Police which sets the investigation in motion, and reduced to writing by the latter is known as

1154. Information in cognizable cases —(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf: [Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under Section 326-A, Section 326-B, Section 354, Section 354-A, Section 354-B, Section 354-C, Section 354-D, Section 376, [Section 376-A, Section 376-AB, Section 376-B, Section 376-C, Section 376-D, Section 376-DA, Section 376-DB], Section 376-E or Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer: Provided further that— (a) in the event that the person against whom an offence under Section 354, Section 354-A, Section 354- B, Section 354-C, Section 354-D, Section 376, [Section 376-A, Section 376-AB, Section 376-B, Section 376-C, Section 376-D, Section 376-DA, Section 376-DB], Section 376-E or Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place of such person's choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be; (b) the recording of such information shall be videographed; (c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (5-A) of Section 164 as soon as possible.] (2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. (3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence. 2 PRINCEP’S commentary on THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973 (19TH ed. 2008) Vol. 3 AIR 1975 SC 1453 : (1975) 4 SCC 257 : 1975 CrLJ 1201.

the ‘First Information Report’ or FIR though the term is not mentioned in the Code.4 Generally the investigation starts after the first information is recorded but the receipt and recording of FIR by the police is not a condition precedent to the setting in motion of a criminal investigation.5 The importance of the FIR lies in its being the first recorded statement of the occurrence6 however it is always a question of fact depending upon the circumstances of each case whether a particular information would constitute the FIR. No piece of information, however vouge, indefinite or unauthorised can be regarded as the FIR merely because it was received first in point of time.7 There might be instances where more than one information relating to same cognizable offence is received then it will be decided according to the facts and circumstances of each case that which information could be treated as FIR.“…it is quite possible and happens not infrequently that more information than one are given to a police officer-in-charge of a Police Station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case, he need enter every one of them in the station house diary and this is implied in S.154 of Cr.P.C apart from a vogue information by a phone call or cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the station house diary, kept for this purpose, by a Police Officer-in-charge of Police Station is the First Information Report- FIR postulated by S.154 of Cr.P.C. All other information made orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the first information report and entered in the station house diary by the Police Officer or such other cognizable offences as may come to his notice during the investigation, will be statements falling under S. 162 of Cr.P.C. No such information/statement can properly be treated as an FIR and entered in the station house diary again, as it would in fact be a second FIR and the same cannot be in the conformity with the scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code.”8

4 Manimohan v. Emperor, (1931) 58 Cal 1312. 5 Nazir v. King Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 18; Apren v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1 (5) : (1973) 3 SCC 114 : 1973 CrLJ 185. 6 Supra note 2. 7 Tapindar Singh v. State, AIR 1970 SC 1566: 1970 CrLJ 1415. 8 T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cr) 1048.

2.2 CONTENTS OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

The first and foremost requirement of S.154 is that the information must disclose commission of a cognizable offence, if the particulars given in the information are satisfactory for the appreciation of the evidence then it is not required that the information must give details of all the elements of the offence or the weapon used or the names of witnesses or even the accused.9 “…It is true that a first information report need not contain the minutest details as to how the offence has taken place nor it is required to contain the names of the offenders or the witnesses. But it must at least contain some information about the crime committed as also some information about the manner in which the cognizable offence has been committed. A cryptic message recording an occurrence cannot be termed as a First Information Report.”10 “FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopedia of the entire events and cannot contain the minutest details if the events. When essentially material facts are disclosed in the FIR that is sufficient.”11

Number of judicial precedents have laid down the requirements as to the contents of an FIR and the ratios of all these decisions are being followed as rule of law. The statutory requirements of section 154 are (i) there must be an information, either oral or written and (ii) such information must relate to the commission of a cognizable offence. Sub- section (1) of section 154 commences with the words, “every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence”. Here, the word “every” is not a mandate upon the informant to inform all the facts relating to the offence.12

9 Pandurang v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1955 SC 216 : 1955 CrLJ 572 : (1955) 1 SCR 1083. 10 Patai v. State of UP (2010) 4 SCC 429 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 854. 11 Kirender Sarkar v. State of Assam, (2009) 12 SCC 342 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 241. 12 S.P. Sen Gupta, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (1st ed. 2010) Vol. I.

2.3 OBJECT AND IMPORTANCE OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

The object of recording the first information report is to put into writing the statement of the informant before his memory fades or before he gets time and opportunity to embellish it.13 But receipt and recording of information by the police officer under S.154 is not a condition precedent to set in motion of criminal investigation.14 This clearly indicates that the prosecution or trial could not be challenged on the ground that there was no FIR if the police officer starts the investigation of a cognizable offence and goes to the spot on hearing that a cognizable offence has been committed, without recording such information.

The lodging of FIR has an object. The Apex Court in Hasib v. State of Bihar15, has observed thus:

“….The principal object of the first information report 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 for tracing and bringing to book the guilty party….”

FIR. merely marks the beginning of the investigation and its value depends on the circumstances of a particular case and the nature of the crime. It does not help in determining the number of trials in a particular case conclusively.16 It is crucial because it contains first information about the incidence and has fewer chances of alteration and improvement of the information17 but it is not a substantive evidence.18

The object of the first information report is three-fold. Firstly, to inform the magistrate of the District and the District Superintendent of Police who are responsible for the peace and safety of the district, of the offences reported at the station. Secondly, to acquaint the Judicial officers before whom the case is ultimately tried, what are the facts given out immediately after the occurrence and on what material the investigation

13 Durga Das Basu, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 1973, (5th ed. 2014) Vol. I. 14 Thevar v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1973) 3 SCC 680 : AIR 1973 SC 659 : 1973 CrLJ 602; Apren v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1 : (1973) 3 SCC 114 : 1973 CrLJ185. 15 AIR 1972 SC 283. 16 Chandra v. State of U.P., AIR (1971) 3SCC 983. 17 Sujoy Sen v State of West Bengal, (2007) 6 SCC 32 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 47 : 2007 CrLJ 3727. 18 Asahram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 11 SCC 164.

commenced. Thirdly, to safeguard the accused against subsequent variations or additions.19

In Dhananjay v. State20 it was held that “there is no doubt that FIR in a criminal case is vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating evidence led by the prosecution at the trial. Once the FIR is proved to be truthful then only on the basis of some discrepancies or delay in lodging FIR entire prosecution case could not be discarded.21

2.4 CONDITIONS OF VALIDITY OF AN FIR

In order to be valid as a first information under section 154 the information:

• Must disclose on the face of it commission of a cognizable offence.22 • Must be given to the officer empowered under S. 154 i.e. officer-in-charge of a police station, superintendent of police or some other officer, to whom the status of an officer-in-charge of a police station is given by the statute. An information given to an officer not empowered by S. 154 or by the statute would not be first information even though it is first in point of time. • Must be reduced into writing and signed by the informant. • Must not be vouge or indefinite. • Must be the earliest report relating to the commission of cognizable offence made to a police officer with a view to his taking action in the matter, after recording it in writing for that purpose.23

19 R P Kathuria, Supreme Court on Criminal Law (1950-2013), (8th ed. 2014) Vol. IV. 20 (2007) 14 SCC 768. 21 Animireddi v. Public Prosecutor, (2008) 5 SCC 368. 22 Manimohan v. Emperor, AIR 1931 Cal 745. 23 Soma v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1975 SC 1453.

2.5 MULTIPLE AND CROSS FIRs In T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala24 it was held that no information received after the commencement in investigation can be treated as FIR but in Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and others25 it was held that “In T.T Antony case Supreme Court did not consider the legal right of an aggrieved person to file counterclaim. On the contrary, from the observations found in the said judgment, it clearly indicates that filing a counter- complaint is permissible. If the law laid down in T.T Antony case is to be accepted as holding that a second complaint in regard to the same incident filed as counter-complaint is prohibited under the Criminal Procedure Code then, such conclusion would lead to serious consequences. This will be clear from the hypothetical example that if in regard to a crime committed by the real accused he takes the first opportunity to lodge a false complaint and the same is registered by the jurisdictional police then the aggrieved victim of such crime will be precluded from lodging a complaint giving his version of the incident in question, consequently he will be deprived of his legitimate right to bring the real accused to book. This cannot be the purport of the Code.” It was also held that second complaint in regard to the same incident filed as a counter-complaint is not prohibited under Cr.P.C.

Further it can be said that “…law does not prohibit registration and investigation of two FIRs in respect of the same incident in case the versions are different. The test of sameness is to be applied otherwise there would not be cross-cases and counter- cases.”26 It has to be checked whether “…both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is in affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in case contrary is proved the second FIR is permissible.”27 In Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation28 “second FIR was quashed on ground of existence of an earlier FIR for connected offences and the charge sheet filed in second FIR was held to be regarded as supplementary charge sheet in earlier FIR.”

24 (2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cr) 1048. 25 (2004) 13 SCC 292 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 211. 26 Shivshankar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 1 SCC 130. 27 Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 336. 28 (2013) 6 SCC 348 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 309 : 2013 SCC Online SC 310.

2.6 IS FIR A PUBLIC DOCUMENT?

Sub-section 2 of S.15429 requires that “a copy of information as recorded under section 154(1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.” But it has to be seen that whether the accused have any right to have a copy of the FIR, if yes at what stage?

S.207 of Cr.P.C provides that “in any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of the first information report recorded under Section 154.” Combined reading of sub-sections (5) and (7) of S.173 also gives the impression that the police may also supply the copy of the FIR along with other documents to the accused. However, the provisions of S.207 and S.173 are applicable only when the police report is filed by the police. Cr.P.C does not provide any specific provision which requires the supply of copy of FIR to the accused immediately after registration of FIR or before filing of police report. Non-availability of any such provision affects the right of the accused to prepare an effective defence. Even though there is no such provision in Cr.P.C but there are judgments of courts which provides for the supply of the copy of FIR after registration of the FIR and before filing of police report.

It is germane to note that FIR is a public document, as held in Munna Singh Tomar v. State of M.P and others30 “…the copy of such a document which is statutorily required to be furnished to the accused under S.207 Cr.P.C to enable the trial to commence cannot be treated as a ‘private document’.”

There are number of judgments where the court held that FIR is a public document and the copy of FIR should not be denied to the accused. It was held by Gujarat High Court that “…whenever FIR is registered against the accused, a copy of it is forwarded to the Court under provisions of the Code. Thus, it becomes a public document. Considering (1) of the provisions of Art.21 of the Constitution of India, (2) First Information Report is a public document in view of S.74 of the Evidence Act, (3) Accused gets right as allegations are made against him under provisions of S.76 of the Indian Evidence Act, and (4) FIR is a document to which S.162 of the Code does not apply and is of considerable value as on that basis investigation commenced and that is the first version

29 Supra note 1. 30 1987 SCC Online MP 190 : 1989 Cri LJ 580, Para 11.

of the prosecution, as and when application is made by accused for a certified copy of the complaint, the Court to which it is forwarded should give certified copy of the FIR, if the application and legal fees thereof have been tendered for the same in the Court of law…”31

In the case of Panchanan Mondal v. State32 it was held that “…it is expedient in the interests of justice that a certified copy of the first information report, which is a public document, should be granted to the accused on his payment of the legal fees therefor at any stage even earlier than the stage of S. 173(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the later stage of accused will have the right to have a free copy but the same would not take away the right he already has in law to have a certified copy of the first information report on payment of the legal fees.”

The importance of providing copy of FIR was recognised even in earlier times as held in the case of Dhanpat Singh v. Emperor33“…It is vitally necessary that an accused person should be granted a copy of the first information at the earliest possible state in order that he may get the benefit of legal advice. To put difficulties in the way of his obtaining such a copy is only creating a temptation in the way of the officers who are in possession of the originals.”

Delhi High Court has provided certain directions and explained the issue of providing copy of the FIR to the accused and provided that “an accused is entitled to get a copy of the First Information Report at an earlier stage than as prescribed under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.”34

Recently Supreme Court of India has held “that the person accused in the FIR of commission of a cognizable offence is entitled to have a copy of FIR at a stage prior to that prescribed under S.207 and the FIRs registered in police stations, excepting those pertaining to offences of sensitive nature are required to be uploaded on the official website of all the states.”35 Apex Court has issued detailed directions in regard to the issue availability of FIRs online. Following are the directions issued by the Court:

31 Jayantibhai Lalubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 1992 SCC Online Guj 26 : (1993) 1 GLH 218 : (1992) 33 (1) GLR 723 : 1992 Cri LJ 2377. 32 1970 SCC Online Cal 100 : 1971 Cri LJ 875, Para 18. 33 1917 SCC Online Pat 296 : AIR 1917 Pat 625 : 1917 Cri LJ 982. 34 Court on its Own Motion through Mr. Ajay Chaudhary v. State, 2010 SCC Online Del 4309 : (2010) 175 DLT 110, Para 54. 35 Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India and Another, (2016) 9 SCC 473 : 2016 SCC Online SC 914.

• “An accused is entitled to get a copy of the First Information Report at an earlier stage than as prescribed under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. • An accused who has reasons to suspect that he has been roped in a criminal case and his name may be finding place in a First Information Report can submit an application through his representative / agent / parokar for grant of a certified copy before the concerned police officer or to the Superintendent of Police on payment of such fee which is payable for obtaining such a copy from the court. On such application being made, the copy shall be supplied within twenty-four hours. • Once the First Information Report is forwarded by the police station to the concerned Magistrate or any Special Judge, on an application being filed for certified copy on behalf of the accused, the same shall be given by the court concerned within two working days. The aforesaid direction has nothing to do with the statutory mandate inhered under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. • The copies of the FIR, unless the offence is sensitive in nature, like sexual offence, offences pertaining to insurgency, terrorism and of that category, offences under POCSO Act and such other offences, should be uploaded on the police website, and if there is no such website, on the official website of the State Government within twenty-four hours of the registration of the first information report so that the accused or any person connected with the same can download the FIR and file appropriate application before the court as per law for redressal of his grievances. It may be clarified here that in case there is connectivity problems due to geographical location or there is some other unavoidable difficulty, the time can be extended up to forty-eight hours. The said forty-eight hours can be extended maximum up to 72 hours and it is only relatable to connectivity problems due to geographical location. • The decision not to upload the copy of the FIR on the website shall not be taken by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or any person holding equivalent post. In case, the States where the District Magistrate has a role, he may assume the said authority. A decision taken by the police officer concerned or the District Magistrate shall be duly communicated to the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned.

• The word ‘sensitive’ apart from the other aspects which may be thought of being sensitive by the competent authority as stated hereinbefore would also include concept of privacy regard being had to the nature of the FIR. The examples given with regard to the sensitive cases are absolutely illustrative and are not exhaustive. • In case a copy of the FIR is not provided on the ground of sensitive nature of the case, a person grieved by the said action, after disclosing his identity, can submit a representation to the Superintendent of Police or any person holding the equivalent post in the State. The Superintendent of Police shall constitute a committee of three high officers and the committee shall deal with the said grievance. As far as the metropolitan cities are concerned, where Commissioner is there, if a representation is submitted to the Commissioner of Police, he shall constitute a committee of three officers. The committee so constituted shall deal with the grievance within three days from the date of receipt of the representation and communicate it to the grieved person. • The competent authority referred to hereinabove shall constitute the committee, as directed hereinabove, within eight weeks from today. • In cases wherein decisions have been taken not to give copies of the FIR regard being had to the sensitive nature of the case, it will be open to the accused / his authorized representative / parokar to file an application for grant of certified copy before the court to which the FIR has been sent and the same shall be provided in quite promptitude by the concerned court not beyond three days of the submission of the application. • The directions for uploading the FIR on the website of all the States shall be given effect from 15-11-2016.”36 In nutshell it can be said that the Supreme Court and the various High Court have recognised that the FIR is a public document and in order to maintain the Constitutional rights of the accused the Supreme Court have ordered the uploading of FIRs on the website and supply of copy of FIR to the accused also. The above decisions of the courts clearly indicate that FIR is a public document.

36 Supra Note 35.

TO SUM UP

On the basis of above discussion, it can be concluded that it is a question of fact whether a particular information can be considered as FIR or not. There are certain conditions which are required to be satisfied in order to take some information as a first information. Further, there are the possibilities of having multiple and cross FIRs which can be quashed according to the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Considering FIR as a public document and allowing its availability to the accused even before filing of police report is a forward step in the direction of transparent justice and upholding the Constitutional values. Justice is not only done but it is seen to be done with the initiation of such step as the accused gets the right to prepare proper defence which is the foremost basic requirement of a welfare State.

CHAPTER 3

LODGING OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

3.1 WHEN AND HOW FIR CAN BE LODGED

Offences are broadly categorized as cognizable offences37 such as rape, dacoity, murder etc. and non-cognizable38offences like simple hurt, assault, mischief, public nuisance etc. in Cr.P.C. The definition of cognizable offence under Sec.2(C) clearly provides that the police officer is empowered to arrest the accused without warrant, Sec.156 entrust the police officer with the authority to investigate any cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate. The powers given to the police officer by these sections recognises the seriousness of cognizable offences and the need of prompt action by the police to maintain law and order in the society.

Chapter XII of Cr.P.C deals with information to the police and their powers to investigate. FIR can be lodged in cognizable cases only. According to Sec.155(4) the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case where it relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, notwithstanding that the other offences are non- cognizable. The condition which is sine qua non for recording a first information report is that there must be an information and that the information must disclose a cognizable offence.39 Sec.154 provides that the information relating to a cognizable offence can be given to an officer-in-charge of a police station either orally or in writing, if it is given orally then the it shall be reduced to writing by the police officer himself or under his direction and read over to the informant but in either case it has to be signed by the informant and the substance shall be entered in the book kept by such officer.

If the informant is a woman against whom an offence under Sec.326-A, Sec.326-B, Sec.354, Sec.354-A, Sec. 354-B, Sec.354-C, Sec.354-D, Sec.376, Sec.376-A, Sec.376- AB, Sec.376-B, Sec.376-C, Sec.376-D, Sec.376-DA, Sec.376-DB, Sec.376-E or

37 Section 2(c) “cognizable offence” means an offence for which, and “cognizable case” means a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant. 38 Section 2 (l) “non-cognizable offence” means an offence for which, and “non-cognizable case” means a case in which, a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant. 39 State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426

Sec.509 is alleged to have been committed or attempted then there is a requirement that such information shall be recorded by a woman police officer or woman officer. Further, if the informant, against whom any sexual offence as mentioned under Sec.154 is alleged to have been committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled then it is required that the information shall be recorded by the police officer at the residence of the person seeking to give the information or at a convenient place of such person’s choice and such recording is to be done in the presence of an interpreter or a social educator, here it is also required that such recording shall be videographed. An FIR would be considered as valid if the above-mentioned requirements are satisfied.

3.2 WHO CAN LODGE FIR

Lodging of FIR is important so that criminal law can be set in motion. To bring clarity in the process of recording of first information report it is also pertinent to know that who can lodge an FIR. Following persons can lodge FIR-

1. Any person who is aware of the commission of an offence; 2. Complainant who is an aggrieved person or someone on his behalf; 3. Accused himself; 4. Officer-in-charge himself on his own knowledge or information; or 5. Under the order of Magistrate under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C, when a complaint is forwarded to officer-in-charge without taking cognizance of an offence.40 In the case of Mani v. State41 it was laid down that “…a first information report which sets the process of law in motion can come from any quarters, even anonymous sources…” an anonymous letter reporting commission of a cognizable offence can42 be treated as FIR. It is not compulsory that the FIR should only be lodged by a person who has seen the commission of a cognizable offence. According to the judgment in the case of Nankhu singh & anr. v. State of Bihar43 an informant need not to be an eyewitness44. This indicates that the person who does

40 R P Kathuria, Supreme Court on Criminal Law (1950-2013), (8th ed.2014) Vol. IV 41 1986 SCC Online Ker 326 : 1987 Cri LJ 1965. 42 Durga Das Basu, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (5th ed.2014) Vol. I 43 (1972) 3 SCC 590 44 Hem Raj & anr. v. State of Punjab, (2003) 12 SCC 241

not have personal knowledge of the incident can also lodge the FIR on the basis of hearsay information, even that information will be valid for the purpose of FIR. Sec. 154 does not require that the report must be given by a person who has personal knowledge of the incident reported. The Sec. speaks of an information relating to commission of a cognizable offence given to an officer-in-charge of a police station.45

It is not imperative that the aggrieved person only should be the informant any other person on his behalf can also be an informant. It can be made by the complainant or any other person knowing about the commission of such an offence.46 There might be situations where the aggrieved might not gather the courage to report the incident or due to some other socio-economic factors, physical disability, or lack of awareness the incident might not get reported. Authorising other persons apart from the aggrieved and including even the anonymous communication disclosing commission of a cognizable offence is significant in imparting justice where the aggrieved could not approach the appropriate authorities to get justice. If the information is given by the accused and it is non-confessional then it is admissible against him under Sec. 21 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and is relevant.47

3.3 TELEPHONIC INFORMATION: FIR OR NOT

As laid down in Mani v. State48 even an anonymous communication can be treated as FIR if it discloses commission of a cognizable offence, here it is pertinent to understand whether a telephonic information can be treated as FIR or not? Court’s point of view in this regard is as follows “… the object and purpose of giving a telephonic message is not to lodge the FIR but to request the officer-in-charge of the police station to reach the place of occurrence.”49 “Where the information is only one which required the police to move to the place of occurrence and as a matter of fact the detailed statement was recorded after going to the place of occurrence, the said statement is to be treated as FIR. On the other hand, if the

45 Hallu & others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1974) SCC 300 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 462 46 Bijoy Singh & anr. v. State of Bihar, (2002) 9 SCC 147 47 Agnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, (1966) 1 SCR 134 : AIR 1966 SC 119 : 1966 Cri LJ 100 48 Supra Note 4 49 State of Andhra Pradesh v. V.V Panduranga Rao, (2009) 15 SCC 211 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 394

telephonic information is not cryptic and statement is recorded after going to the place of occurrence then such statement cannot be treated as FIR. Cryptic or anonymous oral message which did not in clear terms specify a cognizable offence cannot be treated as FIR.”1 In Surajit Sarkar v. State of West Bengal2 it was held that cryptic telephonic message given to police cannot be treated as FIR for the purpose of Sec.154.

Cryptic and anonymous message through telephone, which did not specify a cognizable offence clearly cannot be treated as FIR. The mere fact that this information was first in point of time does not by itself clothe it with the character of first information report. The question whether or not a particular document constitutes a first information report has to be determined on the relevant facts and circumstances of each case.3

3.4 REFUSAL TO REGISTER FIR- REMEDIES AVAILABLE

Cr.P.C has laid down provisions for reporting of the offences and the manner in which the information is to be recorded. Sec. 154 puts a duty upon the police officer to record the information regarding the cognizable offence and the detailed procedure of doing that is mentioned in the sec. itself. Despite this police officers fails to perform their duty due to variety of reasons such as nepotism, lack of responsibility, corruption. The possibilities of refusal to record the FIR and error in the manner of recording it cannot be denied. The problem does not and here, because there might be instances where the FIR is recorded in the manner provided but there is no surety about the quality of investigation conducted by the police. This will result in failure of justice. In order to keep the faith of the people in criminal justice system these issues must be addressed. There are certain provisions provided in Cr.P.C which are helpful if the police officer refused to register FIR in cognizable cases.

In case of refusal to register FIR, first remedy is available under sec.154(3), which provides that the person aggrieved by a refusal may send the substance of the

1 Ibid. 2 2012 SCC Online SC 999. 3 Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (1970) 2 SCC 113

information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of police. If he is satisfied that the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence he shall either ‘investigate the case himself’4or direct the investigation to be conducted by a police officer subordinate to him. This could provide relief only when the FIR was refused but the criticality lies in the fact that the sec. does not talk about the situation when there is irregularity or error on the recording of the information.

Second remedy is to approach the Magistrate through a complaint under sec.200 or under sec.156(3). Once the Magistrate has taken cognizance upon the complaint, he cannot order investigation under sec.156(3) and in that case complaint proceedings will be followed as provided under chapter XV Cr.P.C. Sec.156(3) provides that the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance may order an investigation, it has the manifestation that the Magistrate may order the registration of FIR before ordering the investigation if it is not registered by the police officer. This section also does not provide any remedy when there is faulty investigation. It is settled law that the Magistrate can order investigation but cannot direct the police to conduct investigation in a particular manner. Considerable number of judgments have laid down that it is not open for the court to interfere with investigation which is still proceeding.5 This proposition of law might affect the rights of the aggrieved person to have a fair investigation with the interference of court. The situation could be balanced to some extent if the law laid down in Bhajan Lal case is followed.

It was held in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal6 that “…the investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offence is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions falling under ch.XII of the Code and the courts are not justified in obliterating the track of investigation when the investigation agencies are well within their legal bounds. Magistrate is not authorised to interfere with the investigation or to direct the police how that investigation is to be conducted. But, if improper or illegal exercise of investigatory

4 Sec.36 Cr.P.C- Powers of superior officers of police. —Police officers superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station may exercise the same powers, throughout the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his station. 5 State of West Bengal v. S.N. Basak,(1963) 2 SCR 52; King Emperor v. Khavaja Nazir Ahmed, AIR 1945 PC 18; State of West Bengal v. Sampat Lal, (1985) 1 SCC 317; Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, (1983) 2 SCC 344 6 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426

power causes serious prejudice to the personal liberty or property then court can pass appropriate order as may be called for without leaving the citizens to the mercy of police echelons since human dignity is a dear value of our Constitution…”

Recourse to the High Court is always open in case of refusal to register FIR or improper investigation but in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh7 it was held that High Court to discourage writ petitions or petitions under sec.482 Cr.P.C in cases of refusal to register FIR/improper investigation where alternative remedies under sec.154(3) r/w s.36 or sec.156(3) or sec.200 Cr.P.C have not been exhausted.

3.5 IS POLICE OFFICER BOUND TO REGISTER FIR?

The provision of sec.154 of the Code is mandatory and the concerned police officer is duty bound to register the case on the basis of such an information disclosing cognizable offence8 this is a general rule and must be complied with.9 The police officer should not refuse to record an information relating to a cognizable offence and to register a case thereon on the ground that he is not satisfied with the reasonableness or credibility of the information because the expression “information” in sec.154 is used without any such qualifying words. Reasonableness and credibility of the information is not the condition precedent for registration of a case.10

“The word “shall” used in sec.154(1) casts a duty upon the police to mandatorily register a FIR. The sec. does not confer any discretion on the officer-in-charge of the police station for embarking upon a preliminary inquiry prior to registration of FIR.”11

It was held in the case of Lalita Kumari12 that if the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence then a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to

7 (2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440 8 Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Others,(2006) 2 SCC 677 9 Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh,2013 SCC Online SC 999 10 Supra Note 19 11 Supra Note 22 12 Ibid.

ascertain disclosure of cognizable offence but that inquiry is limited to cases such as matrimonial disputes, family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases or cases where there is abnormal delay in initiating criminal prosecution etc. the preliminary inquiry even in those cases must be completed within 7 days(later extended to 15 days). According to the judgement appropriate stage to check the veracity of the information received is after registration of FIR and not before that.

“The object sought to be achieved by registering the earliest information as FIR is twofold:

1. To set the criminal process into motion and to have it well documented from the very beginning. 2. Recording the information is necessary to avoid any embellishment etc. at later stage. Further, the obligation to register FIR has inherent advantages which are as follows: 1. It is the first step to access to justice for a victim. 2. It upholds the rule of law inasmuch as the ordinary person brings forth the commission of a cognizable crime in the knowledge of the State. 3. It also facilitates swift investigation and sometimes even prevention of the crime. In both cases, it only effectuates the regime of law. 4. It leads to less manipulation in criminal cases and lessens incidents of “antedated” FIR.”13 Making it mandatory for the police to register FIR ensures accountability of police towards the public. “Principles of democracy and liberty demand a regular efficient check on public powers. One way of keeping check on authorities with powers is by documenting every action of theirs. Accordingly, under Cr.P.C actions of the police etc. are provided to be written and documented. The police is required to maintain several records including case diary under sec.172 Cr.P.C, General diary as provided under sec.44 of the Police Act etc. which helps in documented every information collected, spots visited and all the actions of the police officers so that their activities can be

13 Ibid.

documented.”14 This ensures the accountability and transparency in the criminal process.

Criminal Law Amendment Act 201315 inserted sec.166-A which makes a police officer criminally liable if he does not register FIR in cases of sexual offences and acid attack.

TO SUM UP

Plain reading of sec.154 gives an impression that first information report can be lodged in cases of cognizable offences. Mandatory nature of the provisions mentioned under sec.154 casts a duty upon the police officer to register FIR when he receives information regarding a cognizable offence, orally or in writing. The information given to an officer- in-charge of a police station or to his superior officer can be treated as FIR but information given to a police officer below the rank of officer-in-charge cannot be treated as FIR. It is the bounden duty of police to register FIR and the duty is so important that the failure of police officer to record FIR in sexual offences, and in offences of acid attack will attract criminal liability under sec.166-A IPC,1860. Sec.166-A IPC was inserted by Act 13 of 2013, S.3 (w.r.e.f. 3-2-2013), the criminal liability upon the police officer for refusing the registration of FIR is added so late and even now it is limited to some offences. In order to ensure prompt police action when commission of cognizable offence is alleged criminal liability should be imposed upon the police officer even if there is refusal to register FIR in any cognizable offence.

14 Ibid. 15 Act 13 of 2013, S.3 (w.r.e.f. 3-2-2013).

CHAPTER 4

DELAY IN LODGING FIR

4.1 IMPORTNACE OF PROMPT REPORTING OF FIR

First information report is an important document despite that fact it is not a substantive piece of evidence and have very limited evidentiary uses and value. prompt lodging of FIR advances credence to the prompt prosecution version and reduces the possibility of a coloured version being put up by the complainant in the report.1 Because of this reason the delay in lodging FIR is seen with suspicion by the courts. FIR contains the first spontaneous version of the occurrence and the requirement of promptness is there so that the incident could be recorded before the memory of the informant fades. It is the basic requirement that the FIR must contain the date and time of lodging, sec.157 which requires the officer-in-charge to forthwith send a copy of the FIR to the concerned magistrate so that the possibility of ante-timed and ante-dated FIR could be avoided, this puts an external check for the prompt lodging of FIR.2 Minor omissions are not of much importance to doubt the accuracy and truthfulness of the FIR if it was recorded promptly3 but the mere fact that the FIR was lodged promptly would not be sufficient to convict the accused when the witnesses were found not trustworthy.4

In Tara Chand v. State of Haryana5 it was laid down that the purpose of prompt lodging of FIR is to obtain early information of the incident and to record the facts and circumstances before there is time to exaggerate or unlearn and there is time to get the informant tutored which is a quite possibility if the FIR is reported with delay. The probability of presenting a pristine and untarnished version of the case before the court gets defeated because of delayed lodging of FIR. This leads the authorities such as court and police to view the allegations with suspicion if they were approached with delay. It is clearly established that “…prompt filing of FIR is not an unmistakable guarantee of

1 Jagannath Narayan Nikam v. State of Maharashtra,1995 CrLJ 795(Bom). 2 Bhagar Ram v State of Himachal Pradesh, 1989 CrLJ 2520 (HP). 3 Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 208. 4 Suresh Pandurang Tigare v. State of Maharashtra, 1997 CrLJ 157(Bom). 5 (1971) 2 SCC 579.

the truthfulness or authenticity of the version of prosecution…”6 but prompt lodging of FIR is important to maintain the freshness of the facts when they are recorded to form the basis of prosecution case.

4.2 DELAY IN REPORTING

Plethora of decisions from the apex court as well as from different High Courts dealing with the issue of delay in lodging FIR. Delay in this regard is co-related with various other facts and circumstances and if the delay is properly explained then there is no adverse effect upon the case of prosecution.7 There are number of decisions where the delay was considered fatal whereas delay was considered insignificant in large number of cases. Lodging a prompt FIR is of great importance but it is settled law that delay in giving the FIR by itself cannot be a ground to hold the prosecution case doubtful.8 “No duration of time in the abstract can be fixed as reasonable for giving information of crime to the police. The question of reasonable time is a matter for determination by the court in each case. Mere delay in lodging the first information report with the police is, therefore, not necessarily, as a matter of law, fatal to the prosecution.”9 It was held in Krishna v. State10 that prompt FIR rules out any possibility of deliberation or falsely implicating any person in the crime but any conclusion in this regard depends on the facts and circumstances of a given case and the nature of offence. Insensitivity of police should not be overlooked by the court when there is delay in lodging FIR.11

Mere delay in filing FIR cannot be fatal to a criminal prosecution and not sufficient to throw out the prosecution case. Though proper explanation of delay is needed. There cannot be an acid test to check whether the delay in filing the FIR is fatal or not, it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.12 In State v. Shreekant,13 there was delay of about 6 months in lodging FIR after the incident of rape, it was laid down that it is natural in a tradition bound society to avoid embarrassment which is inevitable

6 Dilawar Singh v. State, 2007 CrLJ 4709 (SC). 7 S.P. Sengupta, The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(1st ed.2010) Vol. I. 8 Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh (2003) 2 SCC 518. 9 Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala, (1973) 3 SCC 114. 10 (2003) 7 SCC 56. 11 Ponnasamy v. State,(2008) 5 SCC 587. 12 Satpal v. State, (1995) SCC (Cri) 1039; Gurmit Singh v. State, (1995) 4 SCC 146. 13 (2004) 8 SCC 133.

where the reputation of a woman is concerned. When there is delay in filing FIR the court has to see two things, first, whether any plausible explanation was offered and second, if it was offered, whether it was satisfactory.14 There might be instances where the delay has to be condoned and the ritualistic formula of doubting and discarding prosecution case on account of delay cannot be adopted, like in rape cases. In the case of State v. Maharaj Singh15 it was held that delay in lodging FIR becomes material when it causes prejudice to the accused or where the prosecution case is doubtful.

4.3 DELAYED FIR AND APPROACH OF COURT

Sec.154 does not provide any period within which FIR is to be lodged. Actually, there is no statutory requirement that FIR should be lodged promptly after the commission of offence. There is no doubt that delay raises suspicion but the fact that there might be certain factors which causes delay cannot be avoided such as lack of awareness, lack of courage, social stigma, socio-economic conditions etc. Moreover, in rape cases delay is quite normal because in such cases not only the victim but also the family members think twice before going to the police because of fear and social stigma.

‘Despite the delay in lodging FIR, if the prosecution successfully proves beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the alleged offence and the involvement of the accused in the same then irrespective of delay in lodging FIR the charge must be held to be proved and the accused must be convicted. On the other hand, if the evidences of the prosecution are not much satisfactory and delay in filing the FIR is not properly explained or the explanation is not satisfactory then the delay would provide additional ground to reject the prosecution case. Lodging of FIR without delay and with reasonable promptitude provides an assurance to the court about the genesis of the prosecution case as narrated in FIR.’16.

The consequences of delayed FIR may be assessed from a different angle which is mainly concerned with the types and nature of the offence. In rape cases delay is not

14 Sahebrao v. State, 2006 CrLJ 2881 (SC). 15 (2004) 13 SCC 165. 16 S.P. Sengupta, Supra Note 7.

considered fatal because due to social condition prevalent in the Country there may be delay in lodging FIR of such an offence to the police.17

‘All the offences except rape may be grouped into two categories to decide broadly whether delay in lodging FIR in a particular case is fatal or not. First category is of those offences where the commission of the offence is not practically in dispute or even if it is disputed the commission of offence could be established conclusively with the help of evidences. For eg. Homicidal death is hardly disputed and if it is urged that death is not homicidal but suicidal then the nature of death could be established with the help of medical evidences. In this type offences question of manipulation regarding the commission of the offence arises rarely. Hence, delay in lodging FIR in such type cases is not considered to be much fatal. Second category consists of offences such as theft, attempt to murder etc. where the fact of commission needs adequate proof. The offences which falls under second category requires prompt FIR and inordinate delay would signify against the prosecution case because in such type of offences there are chances of manipulation regarding the commission and the persons involved in the crime.’18 Delay in lodging FIR in such type of offences is considered to be fatal.

4.4 NEED OF PRAGMATIC APPRAOCH

There is no statutory requirement of promptly lodging a first information report as there is no such mention under sec.154 Cr.P.C. But the requirement to lodge the FIR without delay arises in view of large number of judgments. The rationale behind this judge- made law is that the FIR being the first information about the alleged offence, in case it is lodged promptly there is less chance of exaggeration and improvement. But it should not be ignored that the prosecution has to prove the commission of alleged offence and that too by the accused. Irrespective of the fact that FIR was lodged with or without delay the charge must be established by the prosecution.

It is settled law that delay is not fatal in every case if the witnesses are trustworthy and reliable but it has to be analysed that when it can be said that there has been delay in

17 Sudhansu Sekhar v. State, (2002) 10 SCC 743. 18 S.P. Sengupta, Supra Note 7.

lodging FIR? ‘Because delay is not merely a mathematical calculation of time gap between the commission of offence and its reporting to the police. There might be circumstances where the informant had considered important to do other things than reporting the crime to the police. Like, in accident cases the person might be keen to take the injured to the hospital to save his life than informing the police.’19 Delay has to be judged at the backdrop of the totality of each case and there cannot be any straitjacket formula to judge delay in every case. “The old thinking that delay in lodging FIR is fatal for the prosecution requires rethinking and a pragmatic approach. The factum of delay requires the court to scrutinize the evidence adduced with greater degree of care and caution.”20

TO SUM UP

Lodging of FIR is important to set the criminal law in motion but that is not the case always, the investigation is not dependent upon the FIR. If the situation requires even the officer-in-charge of police can himself record the FIR and initiate the investigation. It is not doubtful that a prompt FIR is necessary to strengthen the prosecution case and to record the facts at the time when they were fresh. But circumstances of each case are different and there are variety of reasons which causes delay in lodging FIR to the police. Those facts should also be considered by the court while deciding the fatality of the delay. When there is delay in lodging FIR there is likelihood of embellishment and concoction of evidences, it is the duty of the prosecution to offer an explanation of delay. Though it is not required that strict proof of the fact stated as explanation is not to be given if there is probability of the truthfulness of the fact. Further, delay in lodging FIR is immaterial when the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But if the prosecution is unable to prove the guilt of the accused then a delayed FIR will add to the conclusion against the prosecution case. In nutshell it can be said that keeping in mind the importance of FIR as a document it is not needed to give much weightage to the fact that it was delayed.

19 S.P. Sengupta, Supra Note 7. 20 Silak Ram v. State, 2007 CrLJ 3760.

CHAPTER 5

EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF FIR

First information report is a written document which contains the information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence. Certain information which is generally necessary for the police officer to initiate investigation are incorporated in it. Despite being a written document and having useful information it does not have much evidentiary value. Considerable number of decisions have clearly laid down that FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence; however, it cannot be said that it does not have any evidentiary value. There are certain procedural uses of FIR and in some specific situations it can be treated as substantive piece of evidence though such uses of FIR are very limited but they are meaningful and important in the criminal trial.

It is settled law that FIR is not substantive piece of evidence.1 It is an information of a cognizable offence given under sec.154 Cr.P.C and if any statement made therein it can only be used for the purposes of contradicting and discrediting a witness under sec.145 of the Evidence Act,1872. Not being a substantive piece of evidence, it is only relevant for judging the truthfulness of the prosecution case and the value attached to FIR depends upon the facts of each case.2 Value attached to it does not get impaired by minor discrepancies between FIR and evidence3 and the mere fact, that it was recorded in plain papers and not in prescribed form because it was recorded outside the police station, by itself does not undermine evidentiary value of it.4 FIR can be used for certain limited purposes only as settled by numerous decisions. These uses are as follows:

a) To corroborate or contradict5 the maker thereof.6

1 Nanhku Singh v. State of Bihar, (1972) 3 SCC 590; Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab, (1991) 4 SCC 341. 2 Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 6 SCC 593. 3 Abdul v. State of M.P., AIR 1954 SC 31. 4 Rokad Singh v. State of M.P., 1992 SCC Online MP 140. 5 Apren v. State of Kerala, (1973) 3 SCC 114. 6 Nisar Ali v. State of U.P., AIR 1957SCR 657.

b) To impeach the credit of maker if examined as a witness.7 (see sec.155, Indian Evidence Act) c) To show that the implication of the accused was not an afterthought.8 d) To refresh memory under sec.159 IEA. e) When the information was given by accused himself, the FIR can be used against him as evidence of his conduct under sec.8 IEA,9 or as an admission under sec.21 IEA10 provided it is non-confessional statement, apart from the uses under sec.145 and sec.157 where the accused is examined as a witness.11 First information report can be used in evidence when the informant is examined as a witness. Despite being an important written document FIRs do not prove themselves and have to be tendered under one or other of the provisions of Evidence Act.

5.1 USE OF FIR FOR CONTRADICTION AND CORROBORATION PURPOSES

An FIR. is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to corroborate the statement of the maker under Section 157, Evidence Act or to contradict it under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. It can only be used to contradict or corroborate the information given in court or to impeach credit of the informant.12 This proposition of law was reiterated in number of judicial decisions and the same view was expressed by the courts with regard to the evidentiary value of FIR.13 It is clearly provided by the decisions of the court that FIR can be used to corroborate and contradict but that is limited to the corroboration and contradiction of the maker when he appears before the court. FIR cannot be used to contradict persons other than the maker of it. it was laid down in Dharma v. State14 that FIR by no means be

7 Shankar v. State of U.P., (1975) 3 SCC 851. 8 Supra Note 3. 9 Mohar v. State, (1968) 3 SCR 525. 10 Ibid, Faddi v. State of M.P., (1964) 6 SCR 313. 11 Supra Note 6. 12 State of Bombay v. Rusy Mistry, 1960 Cri LJ 532 : AIR 1960 SC 391. 13 Nisar v. State, 1957 SC 366; Damodar v. State, (1972) 1 SCC 107; Ram v. State, (1975) 3 SCC 815. 14 (1973) 1 SCC 537.

utilised for contradicting or discrediting witnesses who are not makers of the FIR. It is also provided that first information report cannot be used at the trial against the maker also, if the he himself becomes the accused.15

Further, it can be said that first information report can may be used to contradict or corroborate the informant if he is called as a witness. It is also pertinent to mention that FIR cannot be used to discredit eyewitnesses, where the information was given by the person who has not seen the occurrence. There might be instances where due to the facts of a particular case the corroborative value of the FIR is dilutes. As laid down in Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab16 that, “…the first information report is not substantive piece of evidence. It can only be used to contradict the maker thereof or for corroborating his evidence and also to show that the implication of the accused was not an afterthought. When examination of the first informant was dispensed with by consent, the FIR became part of prosecution evidence. Under sec.11 read with sec.6 of the Evidence Act the facts stated in the FIR that the prosecution witness having received serious injuries in the same incident was in unconscious state and not in speaking condition, could only be used as a relevant fact of prior existing state of facts in issue as res gestate of the earliest information. It is not to be used to corroborate the prosecution case but can be looked into as an earliest information of the existing condition of prosecution witness when the report was given…”

As mentioned earlier that there is requirement of tendering FIR under some section of Evidence Act to maintain the evidentiary value and it does not have any evidentiary value in itself. If the informant is not examined before the court then the facts stated in the FIR could not be corroborated and its value is reduced but there is no bar to use the facts stated in FIR under some other sections of the Evidence Act if the requirements stated therein are satisfied.

15 Ravi Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2005) 9 SCC 315. 16 (1991) 4 SCC 341.

5.2 FIR AS DYING DECLARATION

As laid down in considerable number of cases that FIR cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence, this is a general rule but there are certain situations where FIR can be used as a substantive piece of evidence like as dying declaration under sec.32(1) IEA, as part of informer’s conduct under sec.8 IEA,17 admission under sec.21 IEA, discovery statement under sec.27 IEA. But in order to use dying declaration as a substantive piece of evidence there are certain requirements which should be fulfilled. If the dying declaration fulfilled all the requirements then it alone can form the basis of conviction of the accused even if it was in the form of first information report.

It was observed in Kishan Chand v. State of Rajasthan18 “that when informant was dead before he could give evidence in court, cannot be used as substantive Evidence nor the contents of the report can be said to furnish testimony against the accused, then such FIR. would not be covered by any of the clauses of Sections 32 and 33 of the Evidence Act and were not be admissible as substantive evidence. But in Maqsoonan v. State of U.P.19 wherein it was held that when a person who has made a statement, may be in expectation of death, is not dead, it is not a dying declaration and is not admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. Where the makers of the statement are not only alive but they deposed in the case, their statements are not admissible under section 32; but their statements, however, are admissible under section 157 of the Evidence Act as former statement made by them in order to corroborate their testimony in court. In Sunder Singh v. State of Uttaranchal20 also it was held that when a witness making a dying declaration survives said dying declaration does not remain substantive evidence. When the declaration was voluntary, truthful and uninfluenced by any other factor it can be used for corroborating oral evidence of the witness.

Bare perusal of the cases mentioned above clearly indicates that even if the informant dies after lodging the FIR the statements made in the FIR by him can only be used as a dying declaration if those statements squarely falls under

17 Damodar v. State, (1972) 1 SCC 107. 18 (1982) 3 SCC 466 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 92. 19 (1983) 1 SCC 218. 20 (2010) 10 SCC 611.

provisions of sec.32 IEA. If the statements made in the FIR falls under sec.32 and the informant dies then the court does not have any other recourse available to impart justice except taking the FIR as a substantial piece of evidence because there is no opportunity available for the informant to corroborate his statement in court.

5.3 FIR AS AN ADMISSION OR DISCOVERY STATEMENT

A first information report cannot be used as evidence against the maker at the trial as a confession if he himself becomes an accused. A confessional FIR to a police officer cannot be used against the accused in view of sec.25 of the Evidence Act but the fact of his having given the information is admissible in evidence against the accused under sec.8 of the Evidence Act. If the information given by the accused is non-confessional, it is admissible against as admission under sec.21 of the Evidence Act.21

A confession may be defined as an admission of the offence by a person charged with the offence. A statement which contains self-exculpatory matter cannot amount to a confession, if exculpatory statement is of some fact which, if true, would negative the offence alleged to be confessed. If an admission of the accused is to be used against him the whole of it should be tendered in evidence, and if part of the admission is exculpatory and part inculpatory, the prosecution is not at liberty to use in evidence the inculpatory part only.22

In Agnoo Nagesia23 v. State of Bihar it was observed that the decisions of the High Courts are conflicting on the point of receiving in evidence a confessional first information report given by the accused except under sec. 27 IEA. It was also observed that they contain all shades of opinion ranging from total exclusion of the confession to total inclusion of all admissions of incriminating facts except the actual commission of the crime. In Emperor v. Harman Kisha24 the Bombay High

21Agnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar,(1966) 1 SCR 134. 22 See Hanumant v. State of U.P, (1952) SCR 1091, 1111; Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab,(1953) SCR 94, 104. 23 Supra Note 21. 24 1934 SCC Online Bom 37.

Court held that the entire report is confessional and it cannot be said that the parts related to motive and the opportunity were not parts of the confession. Patna High Court in King- Emperor v. Kommoju Brahman25 held that it would be wrong to extract parts of the statement and treat them as relevant following this proposition of law in Adi Moola Padayachi v. State26 the court admitted only the portion of the confessional first information report which showed it was given by the accused and the investigation had started thereon.

On the other hand, in State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Singh27 the court admitted in evidence part of the report dealing with the conduct of the accused after the commission of the crime but excluded the part related to motive and opportunity. In Legal Remembrancer v. Lalit Mohan Singh Roy28 the Calcutta High Court admitted in evidence the events disclosing the motive. While, in Ram Singh v. State29 the Rajasthan High Court Held that where it is possible to separate parts of the FIR by an accused from that in which he made a confession, that part which can be so separated should be admitted in evidence. Apex court in Agnoo Nagesia30 case provided that “…the separability test is misleading, and the entire confessional statement is hit by sec.25 and save and except as provided by sec.27 and save and except the formal part identifying the accused as the maker of the report, no part of it could be tendered in evidence.”

Sec. 25 of Evidence Act provides that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. So, technically a confessional first information report cannot be proved in evidence but sec.27 is an exception to sec.25 and the confessional statement can be proved to the extent it is related to discovery statement. Now, it can be argued that while making a confessional FIR accused is not in the custody of police then is should not be proved even as a discovery statement but the accused can deem to be in constructive custody while making the confessional first information to the police hence sec.27 will be applicable.

25 (1940) ILR Patna, 301,308,314. 26 See Supra Note 21. 27 AIR 1952 Rajasthan, 3; 1951 SCC Online Raj 53. 28 (1992) ILR 49 Cal 167. 29 (1952) ILR 2 Rajasthan 93, See Supra Note 2. 30 Supra Note 21.

TO SUM UP

In order to summarise the situation with regard to the evidentiary value of first information report it can be said that even though FIR is a written document which contains the first account of the incident but the evidentiary value is very limited to the extent of corroboration and contradiction of the maker but not the other witnesses. Also, the testimony of the eye-witness cannot be ignored only on the basis of the fact that it is not in line with the FIR because the possibility of tutoring and embellishment is attached to the FIR. Evidentiary value of FIR is not affected by the minor discrepancies in it but the discrepancies which are no doubt fatal to the prosecution. A cautious approach must be followed while using FIR in evidence due to chances of exaggeration of facts while reporting the information in case of commission of a cognizable offence. Limited evidentiary use of FIR ensures the transparency in justice delivery system because no undue weightage is given to FIR only because of the fact that it was first in point of time.

CHAPTER 6

QUASHING OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

This is fairly settled law that when the information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence is received by the officer-in-charge of a police station he is bound to register the first information report. Even if there is doubt regarding the jurisdiction of the police station in a particular FIR is to be registered and later on it could be transferred. Such proposition of law is settled to ensure justice and timely action to maintain law and order in the society. On the other hand, the possibility of lodging of false and frivolous FIR cannot be overlooked and there has to be a remedy available to deal with such situation. Further, there might be multiple FIRs in a single case which unnecessarily wastes the precious time and resources of investigation agency when they have to conduct investigation for all those FIRs. In order to curb such misuse of criminal justice system, power to quash FIR is provided to the High Court Under sec.482 Cr.P.C and extraordinary powers under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The exercise of power to quash FIR or criminal proceeding is not limited to frivolous FIRs or multiple FIRs, a single FIR can also be quashed even if was not frivolous. There are number of cases which provides the directions to the courts as to when the power of quashing the FIR can be exercised.

Cr.P.C provides that the High Courts can exercise inherent power to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice but inherent powers cannot be exercised in regard to matters specifically covered by the other provisions of the Code.

“It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case, either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with such proceedings at an

interlocutory stage. It was not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction.”1

There are certain categories where the inherent jurisdiction can and should be exercised for quashing the proceeding.

a) ‘If the criminal proceeding in question is in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by an accused person and it appears manifestly that there is legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceedings the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings on that ground. Eg. Absence of required sanction. b) First information report or complaint do not constitute the offence alleged even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in the entirety. Here, such non- disclosure of offence must be visible from the complaint or FIR and no evidence can be appreciated to decide whether alleged offence is committed or not. c) Where allegations made against the accused person do constitute offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.’ d) “where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for producing against the accused. e) Where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafied and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”2 In considering whether an offence into which an investigation is made or to be made, is disclosed or not the court has mainly to take into consideration the complaint or FIR and the court may, in appropriate cases, take into consideration of all relevant materials.3

In Bhajan Lal4 case certain categories of offences where the High Court can exercise inherent powers under sec.482 or extraordinary powers under Art.226 to quash the

1 R.P. Kapoor v State of Punjab, (1960) 3 SCR 388 : AIR 1960 SC 866. 2 State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426. 3 State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha, AIR 1982 SC 949. 4 Ibid.

FIR or the criminal proceeding were added. It was also held that “the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. The court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint at the stage of quashing FIR or Complaint.”5

If no offence is disclosed from FIR and other attending circumstances of the case the proceedings should be quashed otherwise it would be an abuse of process of law, on the other hand, when the FIR discloses a cognizable offence then investigation cannot be stopped and proceedings quashed.6

In order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings FIR can be quashed by the High Court, as held in Ramchandra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand,7 that subsequent FIR for same set of occurrences is illegal and liable to be quashed.

Inherent and extraordinary powers of High Court are wide enough to serve any circumstance which require exercise of such powers for the purpose of imparting justice and to stop the abuse of process of law but there are certain limitations regarding the time and situation in which these powers can be exercised. However, these limitations are not provided by the statute by are developed through the judgments of Courts. The stage at which High Courts are justified in exercising their extraordinary or inherent powers is very crucial. It was laid down in Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana8 that, the High Court while exercising the inherent powers cannot quash the first information report when police had not even commenced investigation and no proceeding are pending in court. In State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma9 it was held that quashing the FIR and charge-sheet is gravest error of law since the proceedings are yet to start. The perusal of above cited judgments clearly indicates that the High Court is not justified in quashing the FIR before the investigation has started and it is considered to be a grave error.

5 (1995) 6 SCC 194. 6 Subhas Agrawal v. State of Bihar. 1989 Cri. L.J. 1752. 7 2007, CrLJ 408 (Pat.). 8 1977 SCC (Cr) 613. 9 1992 SCC (Cr) 192

Recently, in Munshi Ram v. State of Rajasthan10 Supreme Court held that the High Court prematurely quashed the FIR without proper investigation having been conducted by police. In present case there were certain aspects like existence or non-existence of any prior mental condition of the deceased prior to the commission of suicide, which require investigation. The Court held that the High Court was erred in quashing FIR.

6.1 QUASHING OF FIR ON THE BASIS OF COMPROMISE

FIR can be quashed by the High Court if the parties to the proceeding have entered into a compromise and applied for quashing of the FIR. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab11, application for quashing of FIR was declined by the High Court on the ground that offence under sec. 406 IPC is not compoundable. Aggrieved by this, an appeal was preferred to the Supreme Court, it was held by the Apex Court that “…it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of compromise even in criminal proceedings…”

In Parbatbhai Ahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujrat12, ‘it was observed that power to quash FIR on the basis of the settlement between the offender and the victim can be exercised according to the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercising such power the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of like murder, rape, dacoity etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and offender have settled the dispute because such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. It was also provided that arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership or such like transaction or offences arising out of matrimony and family dispute where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolve their dispute through compromise, in such cases FIR can be quashed.’

10 (2018) 5 SCC 678 : 2018 SCC Online SC 341. 11 (2008) 4 SCC 582 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 464. 12 2017 SCC Online SC 1189

TO SUM UP

The first and foremost duty of court is to impart justice and to act succinctly while exercising its power. It is needless to say that High Courts enjoy wide range of power when it comes to exercise its inherent and extraordinary powers because the statute does not provide any limitation in the exercise of such powers. One of the main objectives of recognising inherent powers of the High courts is prevent the abuse of process of law and use of inherent powers in routine manner will itself amount to abuse of power. So, it is pertinent that such powers must be used sparingly and only in those situations where all other remedies provided by the statute are exhausted. Further, Cr.P.C have empowered the High Courts and not the lower courts because more wisdom is required to be exercised. Practicing inherent powers in routine manner would lead to diminish the dignity and reputation of courts, on the other hand, meticulous use of inherent powers in rare cases would be appreciated and would be helpful in maintaining the dignity of the Courts.

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

CONCLUSION

First information report is the first step to initiate criminal proceedings against a person who is alleged to have committed a cognizable offence. Sec.154 Cr.P.C enables the officer-in-charge of police station to record the information given to him either orally or in writing relating to commission of a cognizable offence. FIR basically sets the criminal law in motion and enables the police to start investigation for collection of evidences to prove the guilt of the accused. Though, it is settled law that FIR is not a pre-condition for initiation of investigation but it is the basic requirement to have some concrete information on the basis of which investigation can be started. vouge and cryptic information cannot form the basis for initiation of investigation. It can be said that practically there has to be some information which could be converted into FIR and investigation could be started and the informant must have the intention to set the criminal law in motion. If the intention of the informant was just to inform the police with respect to commission of a cognizable offence then FIR will be registered by the police after reaching to the place of occurrence but it is not so when the information provided have strong facts and the intention to set the law in motion.

Plain reading of sec.154 puts a statutory duty upon the police officer concerned to register FIR if information with respect to commission of cognizable offence is given to him. Judicial decisions have also laid down that police is duty bound to register FIR under such circumstances. But the real fact that due to certain reasons like corruption, manipulation of records, insensitiveness, burden of work, unwillingness to investigate, etc. registration of FIR is refused in most of the cases. In case there is refusal to register FIR, aggrieved person can write to the Superintendent of police or can approach the magistrate if no action is taken. It is very difficult for a layman to understand the technicalities of law and adherence to long procedure to get the case registered is too much expectation from a poor or illiterate person. Even a literate person who is oblivious to his rights when there is refusal to register FIR might not be able to follow

the procedure. Apart from this lack of resources could also lead to unwillingness to pursue other remedies available.

Chapter 2 deals with basic meaning of FIR, its objective and importance. It can be concluded that whether an information squarely fall within the domain of FIR or not is a question of fact and has to be decided on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case. High Court have the power to quash FIR when there are more than one or even a single FIR can be quashed if the situation requires so. it can also be said that FIR is a public document and the accused have the right to have a copy of it. In order to provide facility to the accused to exercise this right Supreme Court have ordered that copies of FIRs to be made available online.

Chapter 3 contains the requirements of lodging first information report and the remedies that can be availed of when registration of FIR is refused like aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police, Magistrate and even the High Court but justice seems to be unapproachable for the person who is incapable to follow the process prescribed due to variety of reasons.

Chapter 4 is dedicated to delay in lodging FIR wherein it is mentioned that the prompt lodging of FIR adds to the prosecution case but mere delay in reporting a crime cannot be the sole reason to throw the prosecution case out of court. The question whether the delay is fatal or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, there has to be a proper explanation of the delay and the court must have satisfied with the explanation if both these things are satisfied then the delay would not be fatal. In certain cases, like rape delay in lodging the FIR is considered to be self-explained.

Chapter 5 deals with evidentiary value of FIR, it can be concluded here that FIR can be used in evidence for limited procedural purposes such as contradiction, corroboration and for refreshing memory as it is a previous statement. But it can be used as a substantive piece of evidence it is a dying declaration, admission or shows the conduct of a person. There is need to adopt a cautious approach while using FIR in evidence because there are chances of exaggeration of facts.

Chapter 6 contains the situations where the High Court can rightly use the inherent or extraordinary powers to quash the FIR. It is required that the court should not exercise such powers in routine manner. These powers should be used sparingly and that too in the interest of justice. Though the powers are wide but the situations in which they can

be exercised are limited. However, the categories of offences where FIR can be quashed are not exhaustive and the ultimate discretion lies with the court to quash the FIR.

In nutshell it can be said that delay in lodging first information report affects the decision of the court but there is no acid test to judge whether delay is fatal or not and it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case if the prosecution evidence are not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused and there is delay in lodging FIR then the delay will be fatal as it will add to the case against the prosecution. On the other hand, if the guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt then delay in lodging FIR will not be considered fatal to the case of prosecution.

First information report is an important document as it contains the account of the incident and it was recorded at the time when the facts were fresh in memory but the evidentiary value of FIR is very limited.

When there is commission of cognizable offence police is duty bound to register FIR, this is clear proposition of law as provided in the statute and through judicial pronouncements.

SUGGESTIONS

Law relating to first information report can be clearly understood by referring to statutory provisions and judicial decisions. The society keeps on changing and a good law must be flexible enough to adjust with the contemporary issues of the society. In order to improve the existing crime reporting system some suggestions can be made to cope up with issues such as delay in lodging FIR, refusal to register FIR and quashing of FIR etc.

Malimath committee report on “Reforms of Criminal Justice System” was presented in 2003, it was observed in that report that in rape cases women in India are quite reluctant to disclose the incident even to theirs near relatives because of shame, apprehension of being misunderstood and fear of her deeply traumatized and confused state of mind, these factors leads to delay in lodging FIR. Unexplained delay in lodging FIR is fatal to the prosecution case because as the time passes crucial evidences which could prove the guilt of the accused in such cases gets destroyed and ultimately the

prosecution ends in acquittal of the accused. Incorporation of a suitable provision in the Code to fix a reasonable period for presenting FIR in such cases was suggested by the committee. No doubt prompt lodging of FIR is in the interest of prosecution case and it becomes further more important in offences of rape where proving guilt becomes very difficult if scientific evidences are lost due to delay. Fatality of delay depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and fixing a reasonable time to approach court might prove beneficial to prove the guilt because prompt lodging will facilitate collection of evidences before they fade.

Insertion of sec.166-A in Indian Penal Code, 1860 puts a criminal liability upon the erring police officer if he refuses to register FIR but that provision is limited to sexual offences and acid attacks. It is suggested that criminal liability should be put upon the police officer in any cognizable case so that he would be willing much to record FIR to avoid criminal liability. Apart from this some monetary liability can also be imposed upon the erring police officer to ensure registration of cognizable cases.

Allowing registration of FIR through internet in cognizable cases is a good step to ensure prompt lodging but this is beneficial for the people who are aware of such facilities and justice remains on paper for those who are either unaware of such facilities or could not have access to such facilities. An indigent person who is struggling to fulfil his basic needs rarely adopt such a facility even if a cognizable offence is committed against him. It is suggested that there has to be programmes which could raise awareness amongst people and proper intermediaries should be created with the help of NGO’s to ensure justice to each person irrespective of his socio-economic conditions.

Most of the time it is said that police do not register FIR in cognizable cases, this might be due to lack of sensitiveness of the police. This can be cured through sensitisation programmes organised for the police so that a connection between the officials and the people could be maintained and justice could be delivered.

There has to be some provisions for the safety of informant, witness and the victim so that there is no fear in the mind of the people before reporting a crime. Lack of such provisions reduces the faith and trust of the people in the criminal justice system, which is fatal to the maintenance of law and order in the society.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

STATUTES

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Constitution of India.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Indian Penal Code, 1860.

BOOKS

Durga Das Basu’s Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (5th ed. 2014) Vol. I.

Princep’s commentary on The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (19th ed. 2008) Vol.I

R P Kathuria’s Supreme Court on Criminal Law (1950-2013) (8th ed. 2004) Vol.4.

Sohoni’s Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (12th ed.) Vol. II.

S.P. Sengupta”, “Durga Das Basu’s Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (5th ed. 2014) Vol. I.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (1st ed. 2010) Vol. I.

ARTICLES

Vageshwari Deswal, Burking of Crime by Refusal to Register FIR in Cognizable Offences, Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 361-375 (July-September 2013) Vol. 55.

WEBSITES www.scconline.com www.lexisnexis.com

xii

xiii