Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 18

Sec.

154

Any person aware of the commission of any cognizable offence may


give information
to the police officer in charge of police station having
jurisdiction.
It shall be recorded in such a form & manner mentioned
in Sec. 154.
The information recorded under Sec.154 is usually known as
First Information (Report).
In fact if from the complaint or from the verification, he has
reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence he has to
send forthwith a report to the Magistrate. This is called First
Information Report.

a) If it is given orally , it shall be reduced to writing by officer


himself. (It may perhaps also now come through electronic
mail)

b) Writing shall be signed by informant.

c) That shall be read over to the informant.

d) Substance of information shall then be entered in a


book(station Diary or General Diary) to be kept by such
officer.
Case- Rotash v State of Rajasthan
Cr.LJ 2007 758 (SC)
Held-- FIR is not encyclopedia of entire case. It need not
contain all details .

e) A copy of the information shall be given to the informant.

Tapinder Singh v State (1970) 2 SCC 113

Held
Where an anonymous telephonic message did not disclose the
names of the accused nor did it disclose the commission of
cognizable offence, it was held that such a telephonic message
could not be held as FIR.

Mohinder v State of Punjab AIR 2001, SC 2113


Held - A police officer cannot refuse to lodge on FIR without
any reason. If he refuses on flimsy grounds, courts can
intervene and get the report lodged.

Ramesh v State (NCT of Delhi) 2006 Cr.LJ 1622 SC.


Held Recording of FIR is a mandatory, concerned officer is
duty bound to register case on basis of information disclosing
cognizable offence.
He cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether information
is reliable and genuine or otherwise refuse to register on the
ground that information is not reliable or credible.

State of Maharashtra v S.S.S.Chavan (2011)1 SCC 577.


the Chief Minister of the state issued instructions not to
register FIR or initiate action against a sitting MLA . The
Supreme Court condemned this action and imposed exemplary
costs of Rs. 10 lakhs.

Lalita Kumari v Govt.of U.P 2014 (1)SCC 1.


If any information relating to commission of a
cognizable offence is conveyed to an officer in charge of a
police station, he has no option but to reduce such information
in writing and enter it in a book kept in such form as may be
prescribed by the State Government.

The person may send in writing and by post to S.P.

if S.P also refuses the remedy is to approach the


Court( Judicial Magistrate First class) to direct the police to
record the FIR under Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C.

Some State governments established ( including Goa) State


Police Complaints Authroities one can complain against
police if he refuses to record the FIR.

Evidentiary value of FIR is far grater than that of any


other statement recorded by the police during the
course of the investigation.

Sohan Lal v State of Punjab Cr.LJ 2003 4569 (S.C)


Held-- FIR is not a substantive evidence. It is
only information about commission of offence.

Though it is not substantive evidence it can be used


to corroborate the informant or to contradict him under
Sec.157 & 145 of Evidence Act respectively, if the informant
is called as a witness at the time of trial.

What is Corroborative (sec.157 of I.E.Act)


Any former statement made by such witness
relating to the same fact may be proved.
The FIR will have better corroborative value if it
is recorded before there is time and opportunity to embellish
or before the informants memory fails.

Damodar Prasad v State of Maharastra

( 1972 SCC 107)

Held - FIR can be used as an evidence if the maker of


information allowed to be cross examined by the accused. If
such opportunity is denied to the accused the FIR cannot be
used in evidence.

Contradictory (sec.145 of I.E. Act)


FIR can also be used for the crossexamination of the informant and for contradicting
him.
A witness may be cross examined as to
previous statements made by him for the purpose of
contradicting him.

Barkau v State of U.P 1993 Cr.L.J 2954 (All)

Held
Entirely different testimony was given by the maker of
the first information report. It was held that the FIR can be
used to discredit the testimony of the maker of the report and
the prosecution case cannot be thrown out merely on the
ground that entirely different version is given by its maker.

FIR should be lodged at the earliest opportunity after the


occurrence of an offence.
Delay in lodging FIR quite often results in embellishment i.e
the report gets exaggerated or concocted story etc.
It is essential that delay in lodging the FIR should satisfactorily
be explained.

Vidyadharan v State of Kerala Cr.LJ 2004,605 SC

Held
Delay in lodging FIR quite natural in a traditional
bound society to avoid embarrassment which is inevitable
when reputation of women ( offence of outraging modesty of a
women)is concerned.

Deepak v State of Haryana 2049(SC) Cr.L.J 2015


Prosecutrix young illiterate girl disclosed incident
after two weeks to her mother who immediately filed FIR.
Evidence of prosecutrix that accused took her photographs and
recorded her talk on mobile. Late disclosure of offence by
prosecutrix was justified since accused threatened prosecutrix
of dire consequences with use of evidence, which he was
having with him against her.
Delay in lodging FIR, if any, was natural and
properly explained.

Thank You