FIR : All you want to know about in a criminal case

FIR - What is? 

The first information report is a report giving information of the commission of a cognizable crime, 

which may be made by the complainant (the term “Complainant” has been used herein the popular 

sense) or by any other person knowing about the commission of such an offence. It is intended to set 

the criminal law in motion. 

A First Information Report is the most important document and forms the basis of the case for 

prosecution. The word „First Information Report‟ has not been defined in the CrPC. By practice it has 

come to mean the information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence and recorded under Sec. 

154 CrPC.  

The principal object of FIR is only to make a complaint to the police officer to set the criminal law in 

motion while the secondary objective is to obtain early information of an alleged criminal activity and 

to record the circumstances before there is time for such circumstances to be forgotten or embellished.  

FIR:   Its Characteristics: 

¾ It must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence.  

¾ It should be given to the OC of a police station.  

¾ It should be earliest in point of time.  

FIR:  Other Features: 

¾ It may be in writing. 

¾ If given orally, it shall be reduced to writing by the police officer.  

¾ It should be signed by the person giving it.  

¾ A copy of it should be delivered to the informant free of cost.  

¾ It may be made by any person, whether or not he has the first-hand knowledge about the crime 

reported except in certain specified cases. 

¾ Delay, if any, in making the FIR should be explained in the FIR itself.  

¾ Strictly speaking, the Telegrams and telephonic messages cannot be treated as FIR, because 

they are not given in writing duly signed by the informant nor they are reduced to writing by the 

police and read over to the informant. Moreover, there is hardly any guarantee as to their 

genuineness / authenticity. 

¾ Refusal by Informant to sign the FIR is punishable u/s 180 IPC.   

FIR:  Its Basic Objects: 

¾ To set the criminal law in motion through the agency of the police.  

¾ To furnish to the police early information of an alleged criminal activity. 

Value of the FIR: 

¾ It is valuable because it gives the earliest version of the occurrence.  

¾ It is not a substantive piece of evidence.  

¾ It can be used for the purpose of corroboration u/s 157 Indian Evidence Act.  

¾ It can corroborate the maker if he is called as a witness.  

¾ It may be used for contradiction u/s 145 Evidence Act against the author thereof.  

Some Other Uses of the FIR: 

¾ As a conduct u/s 8 I.E. Act, if lodged by the accused. 

¾ As an admission u/s 21 I.E. Act, if lodged by the accused. 

¾ As a dying declaration, if lodged by the deceased whose death is in issue. 

¾ As an entry by a public servant in the discharge of his official duties u/s 35 I.E. Act.  

Refusal by the Police to Record FIR: 

¾ Remedy is provided by Section 154 (3) CrPC. The person aggrieved can send to the 

Superintendent of Police the substance of the information by post. The Superintendent of Police 

of the district may investigate the case himself or direct any officer subordinate to him for 

investigation. 

¾ Further the informant can file petition before Ld. Magistrate who will forward the same to the 

OC of the concerned PS with direction to treat the same as FIR u/s 156(3) CrPC. 

The immediate duty of the Officer-in-Charge of PS on receipt of such information: 

Any information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence (if given orally) is required to be 

reduced to writing by the Officer-in-Charge of police station which has to be signed by the person 

giving it and the substance thereof is required to be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such 

form as the State Government may prescribe in that behalf. A copy of the FIR is required to be sent 

forthwith to the magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence. 

The duty of the Officer-in-Charge of the police station after recording the FIR: 

After recording the FIR, the Officer-in-Charge of the police station is obliged to proceed in person or 

depute one of his subordinate officers not below such rank, as the State Government may, by general 

or special order, prescribe in that behalf, to proceed to the spot to investigate the facts and 

circumstances of the case and if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the 

offenders.  

The practice of sending away complainant, who wishes to make an oral report to go and bring a 

written one, should be discouraged. Each report should bear a consecutive number in the order of its 

arrival at the police station. 

It is well settled that a first information report is not an encyclopaedia, which must disclose all facts 

and details relating to the offence reported. It is enough if the police officer on the basis of the 

information given suspects the commission of a cognizable offence and not that he must be convinced 

or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been committed. 

Delay in lodging FIR: 

¾ Delay, in lodging the FIR, if not sufficiently explained, creates suspicion.  

¾ Delay, without any explanation may be fatal to the prosecution.  

¾ Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a realistic formula for doubting the prosecution case 

and discarding the same. Delay in filing FIR in the case of rape does not mitigate the 

circumstance for the accused.  

¾ It cannot be used as a ritualistic formula to discard the prosecution‟s case.  

¾ The court must look for reasons for delay whether offered or not. 

If offered, it should see whether the reasons justify the delay. 

¾ Delay in lodging the FIR in a case of rape of a minor girl, where reputation of a family was 

involved and where her father was called from another place, delays in such cases by family 

members are usual features. 

Delay in lodging – May be Fatal:  

Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an 

afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger 

also creeps in the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. 

BUT 

¾ Delay in filing FIR cannot be a ground for suspicion at all instances. 

¾ It can only be said to raise suspicion when the delay is unexplained.  

The following are the ingredients of FIR: 

¾ The information should be first in point of time. 

¾ It should be definite and responsible information and not merely rumour or village gossip or 

hearsay of an indefinite variety. 

¾ It must have been given to an officer-in-charge of a police station. 
¾ It should relate to the commission of a cognizable offence. 
¾ It should be the information which set the police on their investigation. 
¾ It should be given in writing or should be reduced to writing. 
¾ It should have been read over to the person who made it and signed by such person. 
¾ It should be entered in a book kept for the purpose. 

FIR: 11 Ws & 1 H 

1st     W – What information do you want to give?  

2nd    W – What capacity?  

3rd    W – Who committed?  

4th  W – Against whom (victim)? 

5th W – When?   

6th    W – Where?   

7th    W – Why? 

8th    W – What they carried away? 

9th    W – Who witnessed? 

10th  W – What they left? 

11th  W – Why delay? 

12th  H – How? Modus operandi (How they arrived etc.)?  

How to record FIR: 

¾ The FIR should be promptly recorded as any delay leads to suspicion and vitiates the FIR. 

However if there is a delay it should be explained in the FIR. 

¾ The FIR should be recorded in plain and simple words. 

¾ Accuracy is the watchword. It may be detailed but not unnecessarily lengthy. 

¾ Time of occurrence should be noted. 

¾ Modus operandi should be elicited and mentioned in the FIR. 

¾ The FIR should be a truthful account-neither minimized nor exaggerated. 

¾ Do not interpolate or insert anything after the FIR has been written. 

¾ Avoid scoring out what has been written. In unavoidable circumstances a line should be drawn 

across the word/s to be scored out still keeping it legible and the officer recording the FIR 

should initial it. 

¾ Note injuries found on the person of the informant or the witness and mention the same in the 

FIR. 

¾ Value of property stolen or damaged or lost should be mentioned correctly. Do not lessen the 

value to improve your statistics. 

¾ The special identifying marks, if any, on the items stolen or lost, together with their detailed 

description should be clearly noted. 

By intelligent questioning, the identity of the accused, the type or weapon used, if any, the language 

spoken, etc. should be elicited and mentioned in the FIR. The circumstances of identification must be 

clearly brought out, e.g. the condition of light, the line of visibility, the distance from which the 

identification was made etc.  

The names of the suspects, if any or any accused recognized during the occurrence, should be 

specified. If a particular person is suspected, the facts on which the suspicion is based should be 

clearly specified. The informant should be able to distinguish between what he saw, knew and heard.  

The names of known/suspected/unknown accused persons with full particulars should be entered 

serially in the FIR (WBP Form No. 27). The names of the eye witnesses and to those whom the 

complainant or informant reported the names of the accused immediately after the occurrence should 

be obtained and recorded for the purpose of corroboration. If such information though available first 

hand is not noted, the defense may term it as fabrication and afterthought. The original FIR should be 

sent to Magistrate having jurisdiction. (FIR should be sent to court without delay – PRB 246). 

A police officer should not defer drawing up the FIR on the plea of verifying the truth of the 

complaint. If a person gives a deliberate false information in regard to a cognizable offence, the 

informant is liable for prosecution under sec. 182 or 211 IPC. A police officer has power to refuse 

investigation in a cognizable case under provisions of Sec. 157(2) but has no power to refuse the 

registration of a cognizable case under section 154 CrPC.  

Refusal to record FIR on the ground that the place of crime does not fall within the territorial 

jurisdiction of the police station amounts to dereliction of duty. It is the duty to record a case and 

forward the same. (AIR- 1993 SC – 2644: 1993, Cr.LJ – 3684: 1994, SCC (Cri) 734.) 

FIR by the accused: 

If the accused gives information of the offence, the officer-in-charge must record it. Any confession 

which may form part of such an FIR will be inadmissible under section 25 Evidence Act, but those 

facts, which do not amount to a confession and merely go to show the motive, preparation or 

opportunity for the crime or give the information leading to the discovery of a fact, can certainly be 

provided on behalf of prosecution under sec.7, 8 and 27 of the Evidence Act. 

First information: Referred by the Magistrate: 

When a Magistrate directs the Police to investigate a complaint or a cognizable case filed before him 

and in regard to which no previous information has been given to the Police, the written information 

sent by the Magistrate should be treated as the basis of FIR. 

Disposal of FIR: 

An FIR once started, shall on no account be cancelled by the officer in charge, nor it is permissible for 

a Magistrate or any other Police officer to do so. Recording of FIR means starting of an investigation 

of a cognizable case which can only be concluded in any of the following ways: 

¾ By refusing investigation under sec.157 (b) CrPC 

¾ By transferring it to a different police station on question of jurisdiction.  

¾ By submitting a final report after such an investigation or, 

¾ By submitting a charge sheet after an investigation.  

Value of FIR: 

The FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is relevant in judging the veracity of the prosecution 

case and value to be attached to it depends on the facts of each case. It is used either to corroborate or 

to contradict the oral evidence of the maker of the FIR during trial of the case.  

Quashing of FIR: 

FIR drawn up on the basis of information which does not disclose any offence or discloses only non-

cognizable offence can be quashed by the High Court by invoking power under Art. 226 of the 

Constitution of India or under Sec. 482 CrPC. 

Concept of ZERO FIR: 

“There is a concept of “Zero-FIR”. It means that a FIR can be filed in any police station 

(i.e.irrespective of place of incident/jurisdiction) and the same can be later transferred to the 

appropriate Police Station. 

There are two rulings of the Supreme Court in Satvinder Kaur vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 5/10/1999 

(AIR 1999, 1031) and in Ramesh Kumari vs Govt. of NCT Delhi on 21/2/2006. In the former case, the 

Court held that at the stage of investigation, the material collected by an investigating officer cannot 

be judicially scrutinized for arriving at a conclusion that the police station officer of particular police 

station would not have territorial jurisdiction. That apart, section 156(2) of the CrPC contains an 

embargo that no proceeding of a police officer shall be challenged on the ground that he has no 

territorial power to investigate the case. In the latter case, the Court held that a police officer is duty 

bound to register the case on the basis of such information disclosing a cognizable offence u/s 154(1) 

of the CrPC. The legal position stated above expects that the police shall register an FIR upon receipt 

of information of the commission of a cognizable offence. Further, if after registration of FIR, upon 

investigation, it is found that the subject matter relates to the jurisdiction of some other police station, 

the FIR may be appropriately transferred to the police station in which the case falls. Moreover, if at 

the time of registration of FIR, it becomes apparent that the crime was committed outside the 

jurisdiction of the police station, the police should be appropriately instructed to register a „Zero‟ FIR, 

ensure that the FIR is transferred to the concerned police station u/s 170 of the CrPC. It should be 

clearly stated that the delay over the determination of the jurisdiction leads to avoidable wastage of 

time which impacts on the victim and also leads to offenders getting an opportunity to slip from the 

clutches of the law. 

Some Important Rulings related to FIR 

1. Criteria for registering First Information Report: 

The condition, which is sine qua non for recording FIR is that there must be an information and 

that information must disclose cognizable offence. It is, therefore, clear that if any information 

disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before officer in charge of a Police Station transpiring the 

requirements of Section 154 (1), the said official has no other option than to enter the substance 

thereof in the prescribed form and register a case on the basis of such information. 

[State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604] 

2. Delay in lodging FIR – Criteria for evaluation: 

(i) The deceased is a newly married girl. The maternal uncle of the husband of the deceased 

informed the father of the deceased of the fact of committing suicide by the deceased on June 

25, 1983 at about 5.30 P.M. The father of the deceased immediately rushed to the hospital with 

members of his family where his daughter was brought. He stayed there the whole night with 

his wife and other members of the family near the dead body of his deceased daughter and on 

the next day till the dead body was handed over to him after completion of post mortem in the 

afternoon. The Asstt. Inspector of Police of Ajnala Police Station reached the hospital on the 

next day i.e. on June 26, 1983 and got the statement of father of the deceased recorded there. 

This statement was treated as FIR. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there has been 

any delay in reporting the incident to the police station. 

[Gurbachan Singh vs. Satpal Singh and others, AIR 1990 SC 209] 

(ii) There was delay of two days in reporting the incident to the police in a case under Section 376 

of IPC. It is held by the Supreme Court that the victims of rape ordinarily consult relatives and 

are hesitant to approach police since it involves the question of morality and chastity of women. 

The woman and her relatives have to struggle with several situations before deciding to 

approach police, more so when the culprit happens to be relative. In such case, the delay is 

understandable and hence merely on that ground the prosecution version cannot be doubted.  

[State of Rajasthan vs. Narayan, AIR 1992 SC 2004] 

3. Delay in lodging FIR – Criteria for rejection: 

Unless there are indications of fabrication, the court cannot reject the prosecution version as give 

in the FIR. Where names of the accused were constantly mentioned throughout, there was absolutely 

no ground to hold that the FIR was brought into existence subsequently during investigation and the 

mere delay in lodging the report by itself cannot give scope for an adverse inference leading to 

rejection of the prosecution case outright. 

[Tara Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1991 SC 63] 

4. FIR for offence committed beyond local jurisdiction of PS: 

The police constable at the police station refused to record the complaint presented to him on the 

ground that the said PS. had no territorial jurisdiction over the place of crime. It is certainly a 

dereliction of duty on the part of the constable, because any law of territorial jurisdiction could not 

have prevented the constable from recording information about the cognizable offence and forwarding 

the same to the PS. having jurisdiction over the area in which the crime was said to have been 

committed.  

[State of AP vs. Punati Ramalu and others, AIR 1993 SC 264] 

5. Delay in transmission of FIR – Effect of: 

(i) Mere delay in Despatch of FIR to magistrate is not a circumstance, which can throw out the 

prosecution case entirely. 

[Pala Singh & vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1992 SC 2679] 

(ii) The delay is not necessarily fatal particularly when it has been recorded without delay and no 

suspicion is attached to its recording. 

[State of MP vs. Gokaran, AIR 1966AIR SC 131] 

(iii) Delay in sending FIR to Magistrate forthwith gives rise to the suspicion that the report was 

recorded much latter than the stated date. Obviously delay needs to be explained satisfactorily.  

[Ishwar Singh vs. State of UP, AIR 1976 SC 2423] 

 

The FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence, it is only relevant in judging the veracity of 

prosecution case and the value to be attached to it depends on the facts of each case. Only the essential 

or broad picture need be stated in the FIR and all minute details need not be mentioned therein. It is 

not a verbatim summary of the prosecution case. It need not contain details of the occurrence as if it 

were an “encyclopedia” of the occurrence. It may not be even necessary to catalogue the over acts 

therein. Non-mentioning of some facts or vague reference to some others are not fatal. We should also 

bear in mind that the FIR was given by an illiterate lady soon after the occurrence, when she should 

have been very emotional and in a disturbed state of mind. In this case, the evidence of the author of 

FIR is substantially in accord with FIR and the Court below was justified in placing reliance on FIR 

and the evidence of the maker of FIR.  

[Baladev Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 372]