A Project on

Information to police in cognizable cases

Subject: - Criminal Procedure Code - I

Submitted to Submitted by
Ms. Deepali Fauzdar Harshal Parashar
Faculty of Law Semester 7th
Roll No.- 4
 Declaration

I hereby declare the project work titled ‘Information to police in cognizable cases’ is a
bona fide piece of work under the supervision of Ms. Deepali Fauzdar, faculty member
MSB Global Law Institute, Bharatpur. The Project is based on original research done by
me and all references are cited at the end of the project.

Harshal Parashar
Semester 7th

Date-04-07-22
 Acknowledgement

I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to my college MSB Global
Law Institute for all their guidance, inspiration, constructive suggestions which helped
me in the project. The successful start of this project was made by their guidance and
co-operation. I would also like to thanks all the people who directly indirectly who have
helped and encouraged me in completing the project effectively and timely.

Harshal Parashar
Semester 7th

Date-04-07-22
 List of Cases

1. Habib v State of Bihar

2. P.Sirajuddin v State of Madras
3. Aghno Nagesia v. State of Bihar
4. Lalita Kumari v State of Uttar Pradesh
5. Youth Bar Association of India VS. Union of India
6. Bathula Nagamalleswara Rao & Ors. Vs. State Rep
7. Sukharam vs. State of Maharashtra
8. Mokab Ali & Others vs. State of West Bengal
9. Devendra & Ors.vs. State of U.P & Anr
10. Som Mittal Vs Govt. of Karnataka
11. Vinod Dua Vs Union of India
12. Parbatbhai Aahir Vs State of Gujarat
13. Kirti Vashisht vs. State & Ors
14. State vs. Harnam Singh, Harnam Singh
15. State vs. Satish Kumar
16. Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of UP & Anr,
17. Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi)
18. Umair Vs. State (Govt of NCT Delhi)
19. Vima Divekar Vs. Gautam Divekar↑
20. Sharda Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Bihar
21. State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Golconda Linga Swamy and Ors
22. R P Kapur Vs. State of Punjab
23. Dinesh Sharma & Others Vs. State and Anr↑
24. Sunil Raikwar Vs. State & Anr
25. Bhajan Lal & Ors Vs. State of Haryana
26. Lata Singh Vs. State of UP
27. Sushil Sethi & Anr Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh
28. Shweta Bhadoria v. State of M.P
29. Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage
30. Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P
 Table Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..2
First Information Report (FIR)…………………………………………………………..2
Procedure of Filing FIR……………………………………………………………………...3
Differences betweeen FIR and police complaint…………………............4
Evidentiary Value of FIR…………………………………………………………………….4
Case Laws…………………………………………………………………………………………..5
Concepts Related to FIR……………………………………………………………………11
Zero FIR……………………………………………………………………………………………21
E-FIR……………………………………………………………………………………….........24
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………..25
References……………………………………………………………………………………….26
Introduction
Section 154 of CrPC lays down the following about Information to police 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.
(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 subsection (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.”
Though this term is not used in the Criminal Procedure Code however, ‘An information
given under sub-section (1) of section 154 CrPC is commonly known as first information
report (FIR)’

• The powers given to the police under chapter 12 of the CrPC which includes
section 154, are statutory. This means that the police do not require permission
from the court before exercising their power under this chapter. The court cannot
interfere with the investigation of the police.
• The object behind the registration of the FIR is that the victim should get relief.
From the point of view of the police, the object of an FIR is to start the
investigation and catch the accused.
• Formalities mentioned under this section such as the signing of the FIR, reading it
to the informant, etc., are not mandatory. They should ideally be done but just in
case these things do not happen, the trial will not get vitiated.
• In 2013, an amendment was done which is very important, it made the
registration of FIR mandatory in rape cases. If the police refuse to register an
FIR, it will be a grave infringement of law. in women rape cases, a female
constable will write the report. If the woman who has been raped, or who has
been attacked, is not able to come to the police station, the female constable
goes to her home to record the FIR and video graph it.
• If the police refuse to write an FIR, then the victim has the right to directly get
the complaint registered with the Superintendent of Police.
• An FIR under this section should be registered as soon as possible. If the incident
is not reported to the police and if there is any unreasonable delay, the court
might not believe the veracity of the FIR. If FIR is registered as soon as possible,
then the police can reach the place of crime and take statements from people.
The information which is then produced is truly first-hand.

1
 • In rape cases, people don’t generally go to the police station to file an FIR without
measuring all the pros and cons. Sadly, we live in a society where rape is
generally considered to be the woman’s fault. In such cases, the victims of rape
get second thoughts while reporting rape to the police. In such cases, the FIR
might get registered with a little delay. However, courts in many judgements
have said that such delay in rape cases is justifiable.
• Filing false FIRs is punishable under law. the punishment for it is given under
section 182 of the Indian Penal Code.

First Information Report (FIR)

The first information report (FIR) is a document that is written and recorded by the
inspector in the police station. It is a document that can be filed in cognizable offences
only. Cognizable offences are those which are more severe and have more rigorous
punishments in law. FIR is not defined in the code of criminal procedure but has been
allocated section 154 under which it is written. It is the fundamental document for a
criminal investigation to kick-start. Without an FIR, the criminal machinery will not be
set in motion.

Who can lodge a FIR?

FIR can be filed by the following persons:

1) By an aggrieved person or somebody on his behalf.

2) Any person who is aware of the offence by being either:

(a) An eye witness and/or

(b) hearsay account.

3) By the accused himself.

4) By the SHO on his own knowledge or information even when a cognizable offence is
committed in view of an officer in charge he can register a case himself however he is
not bound to take down in writing any information and even if the information is only by
a medical certificate upon arrival of the injured, then the (SHO) should enter it in daily
diary and go to hospital for recording detailed statement of injured.

In all the cases the information must be definite, not vague, authentic, not baseless,
gossip or rumour, clearly making out a cognizable case. It is to be kept in mind that the
person delivering the hearsay is required to mention the source of his information and
submit it along with his/her signature to prevent it from amounting to false rumour.

By whom FIR should be filed?

Any person can lodge a first Information Report (FIR). It is not necessary for him to be
the victim or the injured or an eye-witness. It is not essential for a First Information
Report to be true and hence it can be a hearsay and need not necessarily be given by
the person who has first-hand knowledge of the facts.

Where should FIR be filed?

An FIR should be filed in the police station of the concerned area in whose jurisdiction
the offence took place.

2
Though it is secondary, however it is an equally important object to obtain early
information of an alleged criminal activity and to record the circumstances before the
trial, lest such circumstances are forgotten or embellished.

Objective of FIR:
The objectives of filing an FIR are stated as below:
•To reduce the substance of data given of a cognizable offense, whenever given
orally, into a composed written form.
• To have it signed by the complainant if submitted in writing.
• To maintain a record of information of the cognizable offences committed.
• To initiate investigation on receipt of information of commission of cognizable
offence.
• To inform Magistrate regarding the nature of the information received.
In the case of Habib v State of Bihar1, the court stated the principle object of FIR which
was to set the criminal law in motion. In the case of P.Sirajuddin v State of Madras 2, it
has been held that to obtain an early information of an alleged offence from the
informant and to put into writing the statement before his memory fails or before he
gets the time and opportunity to embellish it, FIR is necessary.

Essentials of FIR:
An FIR must relate to the offence and must give detailed information about the offence.
Information may include the people involved, place of the offence, time of the offence,
the weapon used, etc. An FIR cannot be oral and has to be reduced in writing. The FIR
must be entered into the general diary. After writing the FIR, it must be read to the
informant.

Procedure of filing FIR

Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 lays down the procedure for lodging
an FIR-

Written Form
When the information about the commission of a cognizable offence is given orally, the
police must write it down.

Read Over
A person giving the information or making a complaint, can demand that the information
recorded by the police to be read over to him/her.

Verification
One should sign the report only after verifying that the information recorded by the
police is as per the details given by you.

Signature
Once the information has been recorded by the police, it must be signed by the person
giving the information. It is to be kept in mind that people who are unable to read or

1
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.296 of 2001 dt.29-01-201
2
1971 AIR 520

3
write are expected to put their left thumb impression on the document after being
satisfied that it is a correct record.

Copy of FIR
A person filing a FIR has the right of getting a copy of FIR free of cost.

Difference between FIR & police complaint

BASIS FIR POLICE COMPLAINT

MEANING It implies to the complaint Police complaint means an

registered with the police by the appeal made to the
plaintiff or any other person having magistrate, which includes
knowledge of the cognizable an allegation that a crime
offence. has taken place.

FORMAT There is prescribed format No such prescribed format

MADE TO Police officer Metropolitan magistrate

OFFENCE Recorded only of cognizable Both cognizable and non-

offences cognizable offences are
recorded.

WHO CAN SUBMIT? Aggrieved party or the Anyone subject to certain

accused, or any such exceptions.
person

Evidentiary value of FIR

Although FIR is an important document and it sets the criminal law in motion. It is not a
substantive piece of evidence i.e. evidence of the facts recorded in it. A First Information
Report can be used to corroborate the information under Section 157 of the Indian
Evidence Act or to contradict under Section 145 of Evidence Act if the informant is called
as a witness at the time of trial.

Although FIR may be merely hearsay and need not necessarily be given by a person who
has first-hand knowledge of the facts of the case, yet it provides the fundamental on the
basis of which the entire investigation and prosecution will be carried out. The
evidentiary value of FIR is considered to be greater than any of other statement
recorded by the police during the course of an investigation. If the FIR is given by the
accused himself then it can be either:

4
  Confessional FIR: If the FIR is confessional in nature it cannot be proved
against the accused-informant as it would be hit by Section 25 of the Indian
Evidence Act.
 Non-confessional FIR: If the FIR is non-confessional in nature it can be
admissible in evidence under Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act or showing
his conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.
In the case of Aghno Nagesia v. State of Bihar3, it was held that in view of Section 145 of
Evidence Act First Information Report can be used for cross-examination of the
informant and for contradicting him. Considering Section 157 and 145 of the Evidence
Act it can be deduced that the FIR cannot be used for the purpose of corroborating or
contradicting any witness other than the one registering FIR.

FIR as Substantive Evidence

 As dying declaration- During declaration when a person deposing about the cause
of his death had died.
 When the injured makes a statement to the SHO saying that accused was injuring
him or/and when the injuries are being caused in the SHO’s presence.
 When it becomes difficult for the informer who has written the FIR or read it, to
recall those facts but is however, sure that the facts were correctly represented in
FIR at the time he wrote it or read it.

Case Laws
Lalita Kumari v State of Uttar Pradesh4
Facts: The facts of the case go like this -The present writ petition was filed by Lalita
Kumari through her father for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus for the protection
of his daughter who has been kidnapped. On 11.05.2008, a written report was submitted
by the petitioner before the officer-in-charge of the police station but no action was
taken by the so called officials. Hence the Superintendent of Police was approached for a
FIR and then he registered it. However, no course was taken by the police authorities to
recover the kidnapped daughter or to apprehend the accused.
Issue: The main issue which stood in front of the court was whether a police officer is
bound under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to register an FIR
upon receiving any information relating to the commission of a cognizable or does the
police officer has the power to conduct a preliminary inquiry in order to test the veracity
of such information before registering the same?

The FIR is a pertinent and an irreplaceable document in the criminal law procedure of
our country and from the point of view of the informant its main objective is to set the
criminal law in motion and to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity so as
to be able to take suitable steps to trace and to bring to book the guilty from the point of
view of the investigation authorities.
The main legislative intent behind section 139 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1861, and
Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882, is to ensure compulsory registration of
FIR in case of a cognizable offence without conducting a preliminary inquiry. It becomes
clear by reading section 154 with section 156 of the Criminal Code of 1898, that an
3
(1966) AIR 119, 1966 SCR (1) 134
4
(2014) 2 SCC I

5
investigation starts by the police officer recording the first information regarding
commission of cognizable offence into writing and into the book prescribed by the
Provincial Government for the same purpose.
A sine qua non pre requisite for recording an FIR under Section 154 of the Code is that
there must be information disclosing a cognizable offence. This mandatory provision of
section 154 can be noticed by the use of the word ‘shall’ in the section.

A duty has been cast upon the police, in cases of cognizable offences to register FIR and
to conduct investigation in manner specifically mentioned under section 157 of the Code.
Further, FIR book or FIR Register is a book where the registration of FIR needs to be
done. Along with this, it is necessary to write down the gist of FIR or the substance of
the FIR simultaneously in the General Diary as mandated in the respective Police Act or
Rules, as the case may be, under the relevant State Provisions. If there is any confusion
and inconsistency in the provisions relating to Section 154 of the Code and Section 44 of
the Police Act 1861, with regard to the fact as to whether the FIR is to be registered in
the FIR book or in the General Diary, the provisions of section 154 of the code will
prevail and the FIR will be recorded in the FIR book as mandated by section 154 of the
code.
Further, according to the provisions of section 154(1) of the code, reasonableness or
credibility of the said information is not a condition precedent for the registration of a
case.

The requirement of section 154 of the Code is only that the report must disclose the
commission of a cognizable offence and that is sufficient to set the investigation
machinery into action. Therefore, conducting an investigation into an offence after the
registration of FIR under Section 154 of the Code is the procedure established by law
and thus in conformity with Article 21 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the right of the
accused under Article 21 of the Constitution is protected if the FIR is registered first and
then the investigation is conducted in accordance with the provisions of the law.
The advantage of compulsory registration of FIR is not only to ensure transparency in
the criminal justice delivery system but also to ensure judicial oversight. Section 157(1)
deploys the word forthwith. Thus, any information received under section 154(1) or
otherwise has to be duly informed in the form of a report to the magistrate. Moreover,
there are various other compelling reasons for the compulsory registration of FIR.

While registration of FIR is compulsory, the arrest of the accused immediately on

registration of FIR is not at all mandatory. Registration of FIR and arrest of a person are
different concepts under the law and there are several safeguards available against
arrest.

Although, section 154 of the code postulates the mandatory registration of FIRs on
receipt of all cognizable offences, yet there are few exceptions where preliminary inquiry
may be required first before registering an FIR. Allegations relating to medical
negligence on part of the doctor, corrupt practice on part of public servant, and others
are considered as an exception to the general rule.
Decision by Supreme Court: Directions to be followed in regards to Registration of an
FIR, are discussed below:
(i) It is mandatory under section 154 of the Code to get a FIR registered, if the
information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is
permissible in such a situation.

6
(ii) A preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence
is disclosed or not, in case the information received does not disclose a cognizable
offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry,
(iii) FIR must be registered, if the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable
offence. A copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant
forthwith and not later than one week in cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing
the complaint. Reasons must be disclosed and stated in brief for the complaint being
closed and not being proceeded further.

(iv) No police officer can avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence has
been committed and is hence disclosed. Strict steps must be taken against erring officers
who do not register the FIR in case of cognizable offences.
(v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is only to ascertain whether the information reveals
any cognizable offence and not to verify the veracity of the information received.
(vi) The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under-

•Cases of Matrimonial disputes family disputes

•Matters of Commercial offences
•Cases involving medical negligence.
•Matters of Corruption cases
•Abnormal delayed cases where in initiating criminal prosecution, for example,
over 3 months have already passed.
The above are non-exhaustive conditions.
(vii) A preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not
exceed 7 days while ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the
complainant. Any reason or fact of such delay must be reflected in the General Diary
entry.
(viii) It is a mandatory practice as directed by the Supreme Court that since the General
Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police
station, all information relating to cognizable offences, either resulting in registration of
FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be meticulously reflected in the diary, no matter even
if it is a preliminary inquiry.

Youth Bar Association of India VS. Union of India5

Facts: In this case a writ petition preferred under article 32 of Constitution of India. The
petitioner youth Bar Association had prayed for issue of writ in the nature of Mandamus,
directing UOI and States to upload each and every FIR (first information report)
registered in all the police stations within the territory of India on the official website of
Police of all states, as early as possible, preferably within 24 hours from the time of
registration of the FIR.
Issue:

• Whether the writ issued be an order or direction directing the respondents to

upload each and every “first information report” lodged in all the police stations
within the territory of India in the official websites of the police of all states.
• Whether such FIR be uploaded as early as possible, preferably within 24 hours
from the time of lodging.

5
AIR 2016 SC 4136

7
Judgement: The Supreme Court observed that-

• An accused is entitled to get a copy of the FIR at an early stage than as

prescribed under section 207 of the CrPC 1973. The accused may file an
application with a certain amount of fee prescribed by State Government to either
officer-in-charge of police station o superintendent of police to obtain a certified
copy of FIR within 24 hours.
• The accused may file an application with certain fee as prescribed by the State
Government before the concerned Magistrate or Special Judge to whom the FIR
has been forwarded and it will be provided within 2 working days.
• The copies of the FIR, unless the offence is sensitive in nature like sexual offences
pertaining to insurgence terrorism and of that category, offences under POCSO
Act 2012 and such other offences should be upload on the police website.
• The decision not to upload the copy of the FIR on the website shall not be taken
by an officer below the rank of Dy.SP or any person holding equivalent post.
• The direction for uploading of FIR in the website of all the states shall be given
effect from 15th November 2016.
• If FIR is refused to be given because of sensitivity of the case, one can approach
Superintendent of police or Commissioner of police in metropolitan area. It will be
forwarded to committee of 3 police officials and decision will be given within 3
working days as to whether a copy of the FIR can be granted or not. This
committee has to be set up with 8 weeks of 15th November,2016.
• Now, if some state police forces are not complying with these directions, then it is
contempt of the court. It may first be desirable to request the concerned police
authorities to comply with the above said guidelines.
• Importance of the case: The Supreme Court directive regarding uploading the
First information report on the website of state police was a step to wholesome
reform in the criminal proceedings’ apparatus. It aimed at promoting prompt
action, transparency and curb arbitrariness. It primarily safeguarded the interests
of accused persons. The accused who may come to know that he figured in a FIR,
but has no idea of the allegations which form its basis. The apex court’s
judgement also benefited the victims of crime who have no means of getting to
know whether their complaint had been brought on record or not. The Indian
police department is known for dubious record of suppressing crime. Viewed in
this perspective the court’s prescription makes it difficult for station house officers
to ignore crime, a common practice adopted with a view to helping an offender or
to dress police statistics up so that they conceal a slightest rise in crime.

Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P6

Wherein it was held that if a person is aggrieved that his FIR has not been registered by
the police or having been registered, proper investigation is not done, the remedy
available to the aggrieved person lies to approach the Judicial Magistrate under Section
156(3) of the CrPC, and observed as under: –

6
(2008) 2 SCC 409

8
“We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has
a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/ or a proper
investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ
petition or a petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. We are of the opinion
that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to
interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly
under section 154(3) and section 36, Criminal Procedure Code before the concerned
police officers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate under
section 156(3).

If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his
first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under section 154(3), Criminal
Procedure Code or other police officer referred to in section 36, Criminal Procedure Code.
If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in section
36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under section 156(3),
Criminal Procedure Code instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or
a petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. Moreover, he has a further
remedy of filing a criminal complaint under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code. Why
then should writ petitions or section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so
many alternative remedies?”

Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage7

It was held that, “This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., that if a person has a
grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper
investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate
concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC. If such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is
made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if
it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in
his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigating officer, so
that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case
because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with
writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper
investigation.

We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be
flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with
such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate
remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he does so,
the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information
report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the
investigation.”

Shweta Bhadoria v. State of M.P8

7
(2016) 6 SCC 277
8
2017 (I) MPJR 247

9
It was held that if FIR is not registered on the basis of complaint which discloses a cognizable
offence, remedy available to the aggrieved person is to take recourse to the provisions under
Sections 154(3), 156(3), 190 and 200 of the CrPC, and observed as under: –

“Before parting the conclusion arrived at based on the above discussion and analysis is
delineated below for ready reference and convenience: -

(1) Writ of mandamus to compel the police to perform its statutory duty u/s 154 Cr.P.C. can
be denied to the informant/victim for non-availing of alternative remedy u/Ss. 154(3), 156
(3), 190 and 200 Cr.P.C., unless the four exceptions enumerated in decision of Apex Court in
the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors 9, come to
rescue of the informant/victim.

(2) The verdict of Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. & Ors.
reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 does not pertain to issue of entitlement to writ of mandamus for
2017 (I) MPJR 247 compelling the police to perform statutory duty under Section 154
Cr.P.C. without availing alternative remedy under Sections 154(3), 156(3), 190 and 200
Cr.P.C.

(3) Subject to (1) supra the informant/victim after furnishing first information regarding
cognizable offence does not become functus officio for seeking writ of mandamus for
compelling the police authorities to perform their statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C. in
case the FIR is not lodged.

(4) Subject to (1) supra the proposed accused against whom the first information of
commission of cognizable offence is made, is not a necessary party to be impleaded in a
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ of mandamus
to compel the police to perform their statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C.”

The Court thus held that considering the nature of dispute between the parties and nature of
allegation, it would not be expedient to direct Respondents No.1 to 4 to register FIR against
Respondents 5 to 12. It was held that the petitioner is at liberty to file complaint under
Section 156(3) or complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC.

In view of the above, petition was dismissed. [Abhishek Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2020
SCC OnLine Chh 808, decided on 02-12-2020]

Concepts related to FIR

Delay in Registration of FIR
It is well known that longer the delay, the stronger the suspicion. The delay should be
satisfactorily explained so that the case does not appear to be a false one-

9
(1998) 8 SCC 1

10
(1) Names of witnesses should be carefully and explicitly mentioned in a FIR. In
situations when the name of the witnesses is not submitted in the first go and is later on
procured, it is assumed that they were not present at the spot.
(2) As much as material facts as possible and other first-hand incidents relevant to the
matter should be registered.
(3) Even if the FIR is delayed, however they material facts to be filed remains the same
and hence the name of the accused, if known should also be disclosed.
There are three categories of delay in FIR-

• Delay by an informant in lodging FIR.

• Delay in recording the FIR by the officer in charge of the police station.
• Delay in dispatching the FIR to the magistrate.

In Bathula Nagamalleswara Rao & Ors. Vs. State Rep10 by public prosecutor, it was held
that delay in lodging an FIR shall not be fatal if it is accompanied with suitable reason.
An undue delay in lodging an FIR is always looked at with suspicion.

FIR lodged on Phone

In the above situation, a case may not be registered as it leaves the other person in
doubt of authenticity and moreover it does not even satisfy the tests of section 154 of
Criminal Procedure Code which demands the oral statement to be reduced into writing,
to be read over and admitted correctly and signed by the informant.

Exceptions are always there in all situations and similarly we see that in Sukharam vs.
State of Maharashtra11, it was held that it is not important for the informer to be present
personally before the police for registration of an FIR.
It can be recorded on telephone or even through e-mail provided that the facts of the
case are not ambiguous and hence it can be treated as a FIR.
It has been seen that in many police stations of India, even a message on email or
whatsapp, can be registered as First Information Report, provided that they are not
vague and all valid and necessary information has been provided.

Second FIR
In the case of Mokab Ali & Others vs. State of West Bengal 12, it was held by the court
that no first information report can be filed in a murder case after an inquest has begun.
It is ensured that only the first statements and story of informant is to be penned down
in the FIR and in cases of second complaint, there is no scope of getting a first-hand
information and hence it is narrowed down to zero possibility.

Confessional statements as FIR

If the FIR is a confessional one, it can be admissible. A confession is received in evidence
on the presumption that no person will voluntarily make a statement which is against his
or her interest, unless it is true. In case where there is confession made by the accused,
the court decides to accept it by two factor i.e. on the basis that whether the confession
is voluntary and other is that whether the confession is true and trustworthy.
10
Appeal (crl.) 1097 of 2006
11
Appeal (crl.) 1203 of 2006
12
C.R.A. No. 111 of 2000

11
FIR filed by Informant
False complaint being registered as FIR is an inescapable phenomenon and hence it
cannot be ignored. Lodging a false complaint in India is punishable offence under section
182 and section 211 of the Indian Penal Code.

According to section 182 there is prescribed a punishment for 6 months and a fine in
case of any person registering a false complaint to a public servant, on the basis of
which the said public servant takes a certain action which he wouldn’t have had taken
otherwise.

According to section 211, there is no use of the term ‘public servant ‘and hence
accordingly any person who starts a criminal proceeding against any other person on the
basis of filing false information to cause injury to the alleged person is liable to face
imprisonment for a period extending to two years. Also if the charge discloses an offence
which is punishable by death or to a minimum sentence of imprisonment up to 7 years
then the informant is punishable with imprisonment for a maximum period of 7 years.

Remedy available to persons against whom false FIR is filed

A person against whom FIR is filed which is false and baseless then in that case as a
precautionary step he has the freedom to apply for anticipatory bail under section 438 of
the criminal procedure code, 1973.

The aggrieved can also file a case for defamation. He has also the right to file a petition
under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 praying to quash the FIR on
the basis of the FIR. being a false allegation and he being not guilty.

Can a FIR be quashed?

There are provisions in our Indian legal system and there is precedence of FIR being
quashed if characterised by lawful grounds by virtue of section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The circumstances when the proceedings could be quashed are –
1) When the allegations made as complaints or statements by the witness, informant
make absolutely no case or when the complaint does not disclose the essential
ingredients of an offence.
2) When the allegations and statements are so absurd that no conclusion can be reached
about there being a sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
3) Under section 156(1) of the code except under an order of a magistrate, then within
the purview of section 155(2) of the code if the allegations mentioned in the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers then it can be
quashed.
4) When the criminal proceedings are a result of mala-fide intention and with an ulterior
motive for seeking vengeance on the accused.
In the case of Devendra & Ors.vs. State of U.P & Anr 13., it was held that the high courts
could exercise its jurisdiction under section 482of the Cr.P.C, if the allegations made in
the FIR do not constitute any offence and hence in such case the superior courts will not
encourage any harassment in a criminal court for nothing.

13
Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4998 of 2008

12
In the case of Som Mittal Vs Govt. of Karnataka 14, it was held that It was held by the
Court that the powers under Section 482 of CrP.C are not rules but an exception. Hence,
the exception is applied only when it is brought to the notice of the Court that grave
miscarriage of justice would be committed if the trial is allowed to proceed where the
accused would be harassed unnecessarily if the trial is allowed to linger when prima facie
it appears to Court that the trial would likely to be ended in acquittal.

Vinod Dua Vs Union of India15:

Facts: On 30th June 2020, Mr. Vinod Dua, in his show namely The Vinod Dua show
which aired on YouTube had made bizarre allegations against the Modi Government. He
had alleged that the Government did not have enough testing facilities, PPE kits, and the
exports of ventilators and sanitizers were stopped way later.
Hence, an FIR was filed against Dua and he was charged under Section 124A (Sedition),
268 (Public nuisance), 501 (Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory), and
505 (statements conducive to public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by a BJP
leader regarding comments made by the journalist in his YouTube video.
The Complainant had alleged that the journalist Vinod Dua made some false and
malicious news by stating that PM had garnered the votes through acts of terrorism i.e.
by using death and terror attacks. He also created panic among the people and disturbed
public peace by spreading false information about the testing facilities.
Held: The bench led by Justice U.U Lalit took the reference of Kedar Nath Singh Case
(which defined the ambit of the offense of sedition under Section 124A of the IPC) and
held that “Every journalist will be entitled to be protected” under this case.

The Court also stated that no journalist could be arrested on sedition charges merely for
criticizing the Government if it does not incite any violence against the Government or
hatred between communities. The Court also held that charging Dua under the sedition
would violate his freedom of speech and expression.

They also waived off the charge that was created against him under Disaster
Management Act’s Section 52 (Punishment for false claim) and Section 54 (Punishment
for false warning.) The Court further quashed the FIR registered against the journalist.
Parbatbhai Aahir Vs State of Gujarat16 laid down powers in relation to Section 482,

• Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse
of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does
not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in
the High Court.
• While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the
provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to
quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
• the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the
exercise of the inherent power.
• While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has
to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent an abuse of the
process of any court.

14
Appeal (crl.) 206 of 2008
15
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.154 OF 2020
16
Arising out of SLP(CRL) No 9549 of 2016

13
 • The decision as to whether a complaint or FIR should be quashed on the ground
that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the
facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles
can be formulated;
• In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that
the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature
and gravity of the offence.
• Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as
murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or
the family of the victim have settled the dispute.
• Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact
upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on
the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious
offences.

Lata Singh Vs State of UP17:

Facts: The petitioner is a young woman aged 27and a graduate. Owing to the sudden
death of her parents, she started living with her brother Ajay Pratap Singh at LDA
Colony, Lucknow.

She left her brother’s house of her own free will and got married at Arya Samaj Mandir,
Delhi to Bramha Nand Gupta who has business in Delhi and other places, and they have
a child out of this wedlock.

Thereafter, the petitioner’s brother lodged a missing person report at Sarojini Nagar
Police Station, Lucknow, and therefore, the police arrested two sisters of the petitioner’s
husband along with the husband of one of the sisters and the cousin of the petitioner’s
husband.

The petitioner’s brother also lodged a false FIR alleging kidnapping of the petitioner
against her husband and his relatives at Police Station Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, due to
which the sisters of the petitioner’s husband, and the husband of one of the sisters, were
arrested and detained in Lucknow jail.

Held: The Court held that the petitioner is major and hence free to marry anyone she
feels. The Court also held that no offense was committed by any of the accused and the
whole criminal case in question is an abuse of the process of the Court as well as of the
administrative machinery at the instance of the petitioner’s brothers who were only
furious because the petitioner married outside her caste.

Hence, all the accused are released, and the FIR filed alleging the kidnapping of the
petitioner stands quashed.

Sushil Sethi & Anr Vs State of Arunachal Pradesh18:

17
Writ Petition (crl.) 208 of 2004
18
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 125 OF 2020

14
Facts: A contract was entered between M/s SPML Infra Limited and the Government of
Arunachal Pradesh for construction, supply, and commissioning of the Nurang Hydel
Power Project including three power generating units for some consideration.

There were some disputes with respect to the payment of maintenance by the
respondent. Thereafter, the respondent filed a complaint against the appellants and
others under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) alleging that appellants
provided inferior quality materials in contravention with the provisions of the contract. In
course of physical inspection of the plant, the DOP found three runners, turbines were
cracked and damaged.

Therefore, it was alleged that the appellants had supplied sub-standard turbines and
hence an FIR was filed against them under Section 420 read with Section 120B of the
IPC.

Held: It was held by the Court that there are no allegations that were dishonest intention
or fraudulent intention of the appellants to cheat the other party from the very beginning
of the transaction.

Hence, the FIR and charge-sheet filed against the appellants under Section 420 of the
IPC are hereby quashed.

Geeta Mehrotra Vs State of UP & Anr19:

Facts: Shipra Mehrotra was married to Shyamji Mehrotra as per the Hindu marriage rites
and customs. Prior to marriage the complainant and her family members were told by
Shyamji Mehrotra he is working as a Team Leader in a top I.T. Company in Chennai and
is getting salary of Rs. 45,000/- per month. Hence, they were married, and the
respondent left for the house of in-laws.

Soon after the wedding the people of the house started taunting and scolding her on
small issues. She also came to know that her husband was not employed anywhere and
used to stay at home all the times.

He took all her money and asked her to get dowry from her father saying that the dowry
was not given properly. When the complainant declined getting money from her parents,
the husband started beating her occasionally.

Later, the complainant took up a job in a Call Centre at Convergys where she had to do
night shifts due to which she used to come back home at around 3 a.m. in the morning.
Just on her return from work, the household people started playing bhajan cassettes
after which she had to get up at 7’o clock in the morning to prepare and serve food to all
the members in the family.

Often on falling asleep in the morning, Shyamji, Kamla Devi and Geeta Mehrotra
tortured the complainant every day mentally and physically. Ramji Mehrotra often
provoked the other three family members to torture and often used to make the

19
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1674 OF 2012

15
complainant feel sad by making inappropriate statements about the complainant and her
parents. Her husband Shyamji also took away the salary.

The husband went to Chennai for the job. But there was no change in his behaviour he
used to talk in filthy language with his wife. She heard her mother-in-law and sister-in-
law talking about killing her and for the same reason she left her home and went to stay
with her parents.

The in-laws again accused her and asked her to get Rs. 10 lakhs and hence she filed an
FIR under Section 498A/323/504/506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
at the nearest police station.

Held: The Court held that the FIR does not disclose any material regarding any offense
committed by the two appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra. Merely by making
a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture of the
complainant-respondent No.2 without mentioning even a single incident against them as
also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only
related as brother and sister of the complainant’s husband, we are pleased to quash and
set aside the criminal proceedings in so far as these appellants are concerned and
consequently the order passed by the High Court shall stand overruled.

Hence, the FIR was quashed, and the appellants were set free.

Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs State (Govt. of NCT Delhi)20:

Facts: Appellants entered into an agreement with the Ansal Properties & Infrastructure
Ltd regarding the development of the property owned by the Appellants for the
construction of a high-rise building. The respondent no. 2 paid a sum of Rs. One crore as
contemplated in the agreement.

The agreement was not fulfilled as new building regulations were introduced that
prohibited the construction of high-rise building in the Lutyens Bungalow Zone, where
the property is situated.

Thereafter, the Appellant No.1 wrote a letter stating that he does not wish to develop the
property. Since, the appellants declined all the alternate offers from respondent no.2 on
the ground that this security amount of Rs. One crore had not been refunded;
respondent no. 2 filed an FIR against the appellants under Section 406 of the Indian
Penal Code.

Therefore, the appellants approached the High Court seeking to quash their FIR under
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

However, the High Court disposed of the Appellants’ petition filed under Section 482 on
the ground that the petition has been filed pre-maturely as the case is still at the stage
of investigation. Appellants thereafter preferred the present appeal by way of Special
Leave Petition in this Court.

20
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1395 OF 2018

16
The Supreme Court protected the Appellants from arrest and directed that the
investigation be continued. So, the Respondent No.1 carried out investigation and has
filed a report under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate,
Patiala House Court, Delhi.

Further, the appellants additionally filed amendment application seeking to incorporate

prayer for quashing of charge sheet in addition to prayer for quashing of the FIR.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the prosecution is mala fide, untenable and solely
intended to harass the Appellants. We are forfeited in view of the Respondent not having
made any attempt to recover the deposit of Rs. One Crore through a civil action. We
have, therefore, no hesitation in quashing the FIR and the charge sheet filed against the
Appellants.

Hence, the FIR and charge-sheet are hereby quashed.

Umair Vs State (Govt of NCT Delhi)21:

Facts: The complainant was on his way to go to the house of Furkan his neighbor where
he met the accused who was arguing with his mother. The complainant asked the
accused not to argue with his mother, but the accused started abusing the complainant
and started fighting with him.

The accused slapped the complainant and when people gathered there the accused
threatened the complainant and went towards his house. It is alleged that at about
11.30/12.30 the accused stabbed the complainant on the stomach. Therefore, the
complainant was taken to L.N Hospital.

The doctor has recorded the present case to be one of physical assault and stab injury in
the abdomen. Hence, FIR has been filed against the accused under Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code.

Held: The Court held that keeping in mind the fact that the accused is a 21-year-old
youngster having entire life ahead of him and the fact that the parties have entered into
a settlement, this Court is inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrP.C
to quash the FIR on the ground that the parties have entered into a compromise.

The petitioner, who is appearing in person along with his counsel, is warned not to
indulge in such activities and repeat the offense in future.

Hence, the FIR was quashed as the parties had entered a settlement.

Vima Divekar Vs Gautam Divekar22:

Facts: The woman and her husband along with their son when to live at her father’s
house in Mahabaleshwar before the breakout of Covid-19. The lockdown was imposed
and hence they all were stuck and had to live there for four months.

21
CRL.M.C. 674/2021
22
WRIT PETITION NO. 8180 OF 2019

17
During this time, the couple’s son informed his father that he was sexually harassed by
his grandfather. Hence, the mother and the father of the son went to the police station
to lodge a complaint against the woman’s father.

However, the women filed a complaint/FIR against her husband and his mother under
Section 498A, 344, 406, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Later, an FIR was also
lodged against the father of the woman under IPC and Protection against Child Sexual
Offenses (POCSO).

Held: The Court held that the allegations in the FIR did not even prima facie show the
ingredients of the alleged offences against the former Judge’s son. In fact, some
allegations of keeping an eye on her or restricting her from meeting her relatives were
conspicuously absent & came across as an afterthought.

The Court observed that “In such cases, there is a pronounced tendency on the part of
the complainant to rope in relatives of the husband due to the anger generated in the
complainant against her husband, in the backdrop of acrimony & bitterness in their
matrimonial life”. Hence, the FIR was quashed.

Sharda Prasad Sinha Vs State of Bihar23:

Facts: On 31st December 1975 a New Year’s Eve was being celebrated in Bankipore
Club, Patna. The appellant was the Honorary Secretary of that Club. A raid was carried
out by the Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Inspector of Excise and Sub-inspector of
excise. It was found that two women and five men were dancing and singing in the club
premises.

The Excise Inspector filled an FIR against the appellant on 2 January 1976 charging him
under Section 54(1)(a) and Section 54(c) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915.

It was held that conducting cabaret dances without obtaining permission is illegal and
the appellant did not take permission of District Magistrate or any other authority for
conducting cabaret. Hence, an FIR was filed against him.

Held: The Court held that it is difficult to see how the allegations contained in the
complaint could be said to constitute an offence under Section 57(c). The complaint does
not allege as to which condition of the licence was broken by the club or the appellant in
allowing a cab- ret to be performed in the club premises.

Nor could they learned counsel be appearing on behalf of the State point out any such
condition of the licence. The allegations contained in the complaint manifestly did not
constitute an offense under Section 57(c).

Therefore, the FIR stands quashed.

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Golconda Linga Swamy and Ors24:

23
1977 AIR 1754
24
Appeal (crl.) 1180 of 2003

18
Facts: It was a case where an allegation was made against the accused that he was
either transporting or storing black jaggery/ molasses for the purpose of manufacturing
illicit distilled liquor or was an abettor so far as the offence of manufacturing illicit liquor
is concerned. Hence, an FIR was filed against him.

Held: The Supreme Court, in this case, held that the FIR cannot be quashed on the
ground that it was filed with mala fide intentions. In a proceeding instituted on
complaint, the exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for
only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous,
vexatious or oppressive.

R P Kapur Vs State of Punjab25:

Facts: M L Sethi filed an FIR against the appellant R.P Kapur. He alleged that he and his
mother-in-law Mrs. Kaushalya Devi had committed offenses under Section 420,109,114
and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The appellant found that for several months no further action was taken on the said FIR
which was hanging like a sword over his head he filed a criminal complaint on April 1,
1959, against Mr. Sethi under Section 204,211, and 385 of the Indian Penal Code. He
took upon himself the onus to prove that FIR lodged by Mr. Sethi was false.

Later, the appellant moved the Punjab High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated by the FIR in question.

Held: The Supreme Court in this case held that while dealing with the inherent
jurisdiction of the High Court held that it is a well-established principle, that inherent
jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings in proper
case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends
of justice.

The High court would be reluctant to interfere with the criminal proceedings initiated at
an interlocutory stage, however, there may be cases where quashing of proceedings is
pertinent to stop abuse of process of court.

Dinesh Sharma & Others Vs State and Anr26:

Facts: Dinesh Sharma was a distant relative of the complainant. He came to stay with
her and her family in search of a job. One day he started looking at the complainant with
strange eyes and started mocking her in jiffy when her parents were not at home.

25
1960 AIR 862
26
CRL.M.C. 1002/2021

19
One day he picked her up and started taking her in another room with wrong intentions
and then she screamed, and he left her. The complainant told her parents about this and
Dinesh was expelled from the house.

Later, complainant met Dinesh at a wedding. He along with his nephews Deepak and
Vishal started asking her to their friends. At first, she refused.

Later, they started blackmailing her by saying they have her nude photos and if doesn’t
accept their friendship they will release her photos on Facebook.

Hence, she told this to her parents and an FIR was registered against the boys under
Section 354, 354D, 506, 509,34 of the IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act. Petition
was filed by the boys under Section 482 of CrP.C for quashing the FIR on the ground
that the prosecutrix and the petitioners have compromised the matter.

Held: It was held by the Court that an FIR cannot be quashed in heinous and serious
cases even though the parties may have compromised. The Court said that heinous and
serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. such
offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. They cannot to
be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

Hence, in this case, the Court held that exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C
to quash an offence under POCSO Act would go against the intention of the legislature
which has brought out the special enactment to protect the interests of children.

The FIR cannot be quashed on the ground that the victim after attaining majority has
decided to compromise the matter with the accused.

Sunil Raikwar Vs State & Anr27:

Facts: The complainant is a mason who lives with his seven-year-old child. He stated
that will be returning home from work, he found his son crying. After enquiring he got to
know that the accused who stays in the same building came and sodomised the child.
The underwear of the child was wet with blood.

Hence, an FIR was filed against the accused under Section 377 of the IPC along with
Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

However, later the matter was settled amicably and hence a petition was filed to quash
an FIR.

Held: It was held by the Court that the High Court cannot mechanically quash FIRs for
non- compoundable offences by exercising powers under Section 482 CrP.C just because
parties have decided to bury their hatchets. Permitting such offences to be compromised
and quashing FIRs will not secure the interest of justice. The father of the victim cannot
be permitted to settle the dispute with the accused.

27
CRL.M.C. 186/2021

20
He is not the victim and the courts have to safeguard and protect the interest of children
against onslaught by bad forces. The court cannot permit quashing of the FIR because
the father of the victim has decided to enter a compromise with the accused.

Bhajan Lal & Ors Vs State of Haryana28:

Facts: Bhajan Lal during this case was the Union Minister of Environment and Forest.
Devi Lal was elected as the Chief Minister of State of Haryana. The same election was
lost by respondent 2, Dharam Pal against Smt. Jasma Devi, wife of Bhajan Lal.

Due to political rivalries and institutions of various criminal cases, there was rivalry
between Bhajan Lal and Devi Lal. Therefore, the respondent made a complaint before
Devi Lal against Bhajan Lal stating that he possesses disproportionate property or
pecuniary resources compared to his indefinite sources of income.

He also alleged that the accumulation of property was beyond the legal means.

Hence, an FIR was registered under Section 161and 165 of the IPC along with Section
5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Held:
It was held by the Court that where criminal proceedings are registered with malicious
intent or for taking revenge or hurt the accused, due to personal reasons, such
proceedings shall not be entertained and quashed.

Zero FIR
The concept of zero FIR was mainly propounded to be inserted in the Criminal Law
Amendment by Justice Verma’s Committee after the incident of the Nirbhaya Rape Case.
The term ‘FIR’ stands for First Information report which is filed before the police by the
person approached to file the information. The Criminal Procedure has not mentioned the
definition of the term ‘FIR’. Zero Fir is the mode of lodging FIR in any police station
irrespective of the offense committed in that area or any other area. There is no
restriction over the informant to lodge zero FIR. In Zero FIR, the police officer is bound
to take the complaint lodged by the Informant and therefore transfers over to another
police station in whose jurisdiction of that area the offence has occurred.

Objective of a Zero FIR

As we all know, Zero FIR is a more efficient and effective way without facing any hassles
and inconvenience while registering FIR in the police station.

The purpose of filing a zero FIR is as follows:

• To avoid delay and any other kind of disruptions.
• To make police bound to take the jurisdiction.
• Timely jurisdiction to be taken immediately after the registration of the FIR.
• To make sure that the investigation is done properly.
• To enable the case to proceed fast.

28
1992 AIR 604

21
How to register an FIR/ Zero FIR
Before filing an FIR, it is important to know whether the offence is cognizable or non-
cognizable. The cognizable offence is serious in nature such as Rape, Robbery, Murder,
Theft, etc. And in non-cognizable offences, the information is reported to the magistrate
through a complaint. Some of the examples of non-cognizable offences are Forgery,
Defamation, and Public Nuisances.
FIR is registered in cognizable offence whereas if the offence is non-cognizable in nature,
then the matter is reported to the magistrate. Even if the offence is non-cognizable, the
police will still take and keep the information in the book which is termed as ‘General
Diary’.
The steps upon which the FIR is registered are as follows:

• The nature of the offence must be cognizable.

• The information can be submitted in written whereas the information is given
orally by the informant, then it must be reduced into writing and read over to the
Informant. It is therefore signed by the informant and registered in the book as
the direction of the State Government.
• The copy of the FIR is given free of cost to the informant.
• According to 154 (1) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure,1973 -Whereas if the
information is given by the women under section 326A, section 326B, section
354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376,
{section 376A, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376E or section 509 of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is committed or attempted, then the women
police officer or women officer will register such information.
• It is also provided further that the information pertaining to section 326A, section
326B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D,
section 376, {section 376A, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376E or section
509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) given by such person who is
temporarily or physically disabled, then the police officer shall record in the
suitable place of the person in the presence of the interpreter or a special
educator.
• The entire information is video graphed.
• The statement of that person is recorded by the magistrate under clause (a) of
sub-section (5A) of section 164.

Case Laws
Kirti Vashisht vs. State & Ors29:

Facts: The respondent no.7 filed a complaint (hereinafter referred to as ‘The First
Complaint’) against the petitioner alleging forgery before the respondent no.5/S.H.O.

29
CRL.M.C. 5933/2019 & Crl.M.A.40833/2019

22
P.S. Najafgarh in regard to one plot and on the said complaint, detailed enquiry was
conducted by the respondent no.5/S.H.O. P.S. Najafgarh, during which the petitioner
was thoroughly inquired and after the said enquiry, the above mentioned complaint was
finally closed by the respondent no.5/S.H.O. P.S. Najafgarh.

Again Respondent No.7 for the second time filed an exactly same complaint alleging the
same facts (as alleged in the first complaint) before respondent no.6/S.H.O. P.S. Baba
Haridas Nagar, Najafgarh against the petitioner with regard to the same plot. On receipt
of the second complaint, the petitioner was duly called for enquiry by the concerned I.O.
of respondent no.6/ S.H.O. P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar, Najafgarh, wherein the petitioner
informed the I.O. concerned about the closure of the similar complaint (first complaint)
on the same facts filed by respondent no.7 before P.S. Najafgarh i.e. respondent no.5.
The petitioner, thereafter, was never called for any further enquiry by the concerned I.O
of the respondent no.6/S.H.O. P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar, till date.
Again third time, Respondent No.7, filed an exactly same complaint alleging the same
facts (as alleged in the first complaint and the second complaint against the petitioner in
regard to the same plot). The petitioner was again called for the third time, for enquiry
by the concerned I.O. of respondent no.5/ S.H.O. P.S. Najafgarh, during which the
petitioner again informed the I.O. concerned about the closure of the similar two
complaints mentioned above. The petitioner, thereafter, was never called for any further
enquiry by the I.O. concerned of respondent no.5/S.H.O. P.S. Najafgarh till date.

Again Respondent No.7 for the fourth time filed an exactly same complaint alleging the
same facts in the above three complaints.

The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent no.4/I.O. called the petitioner for
joining enquiry on the fourth complaint of the respondent no.7. The petitioner duly
explained to the respondent no.4/IO, that similar complaints on exactly same facts (as
alleged in first complaint, second complaint and third complaint) were filed by
respondent no.7 and informed him about the fate and stage of the said complaints, but
the respondent no.4/IO deceitfully did not pay any heed to the information given by the
petitioner and in turn, threatened the petitioner in most inhuman way to face serious
consequences if the petitioner failed to meet the demands of money as bribe by
respondent no.7.
Moreover, the petitioner was made to sit in the police station from 05:30 pm to 11:00
pm and was subjected to unnecessary questions by the S.H.O. P.S. Kapashera. His
conduct was rude towards the petitioner and he used abusive language while addressing
him. The respondent no.7 and her brother, were made to sit in the office of the S.H.O.
as well during this time.

Learned APP has fairly conceded that as per the contents of the complaint, cognizable
offence is made out. Thus, even on the first complaint made to Police Station, Najafgarh,
the FIR was supposed to be registered. As per section 154 Cr.P.C., if any information
relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is received by any Police Station, the
said Police Station is duty bound to register the FIR. However, if the crime is not
occurred in the jurisdiction of the said Police Station, then after registering the ‘Zero
FIR’, the same has to be transferred to the concerned Police Station for investigation,
where the offence has been committed. However, neither this happened in the Police
Station Najafgarh nor thereafter in Police Station Baba Hari Das Nagar and also nor in
Police Station Kapashera as well.

23
Held: The High Court direct the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to issue circular order to
all the Police Stations in NCT of Delhi and all concerned that if complaint of cognizable
offence is received in a Police Station, and offence occurred in jurisdiction of other Police
Station, in that case, the ‘Zero FIR’ shall be lodged by the Police Station which has
received the complaint and thereafter shall be transferred to the concerned Police
Station.

In State vs. Harnam Singh, Harnam Singh 30 along with 3 men kidnaps a girl in school
uniform. Later, upon receiving the information, both were taken to the police station
situated at Parliament Street where zero FIR was registered and a subsequent medical
examination was done and taken to the Police Station at Tilak Nagar where the duty
officer was given a copy of FIR.
In State vs. Satish Kumar31, an army man in uniform was brought in an unconscious
state to the duty officer. After regaining consciousness, he stated in his statement that
he became unconscious after drinking the mango juice given by a 25 years old man at
Railway Station, and also he finds his luggage missing. So, a zero FIR was lodged at
Itarsi Station and reported the information to the RPF Delhi and thereafter, requested to
transfer the case to New Delhi.

E-FIR
E-FIR is a short form for electronic FIR and it can be filed in cases of cognizable offences
like rape, murder, dowry deaths etc. Its main agenda is to protect the identity of such
victims who may not be able to file FIR at the nearby police station for reasons such as
society pressure, inability to face the society etc.

Different states may have different patterns for lodging an E-FIR.

Conclusion
It can be safely assumed that the filing of FIR is extremely essential for the working of
the criminal justice system. However, the procedure has to be kept in mind. The victim
should first try to get the FIR registered but just in case the police refuse to file FIR,
then the victim can go to the Superintendent of police. The FIR filing can be sometimes

30
Sessions Case No. 260/06, Unique Case ID No. 02401R0002212003
31
CRIMINAL MISC. U/s 482 APPLICATION No. 12047 of 2020

24
tedious with giving out every piece of information and then doing the same during the
investigation. This takes a toll on the mental stability of the victim and his/her family.

25
References
• Evidence Act, 1872
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• R.V. Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure
• The Indian Ratanlal & Dhirajlal The Code of Criminal Procedure

26