The statutory right of the police to carry on investigation under this Chapter before a prosecution is launched, cannot be interfered with by the Courts either under Section 401(442 BNSS) or under 482 (528 of BNSS) of the Code.
In King-Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad, it was held by the Privy Council that the functions of the Judiciary and of the police are complementary, not overlapping; the Court's function begins when a Charge is preferred before it, and not until then.
Sec 173 BNSS - Information in cognizable cases - (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where the offence is committed may be given orally or by electronic communication and if given to an officer in charge of a police station -
(i) orally, it 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;
(ii) by electronic communication, it shall be taken on record by him on being signed within three days by the person giving it,
and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf;
Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under Section 64, Section 65, Section 66, Section 67, Section 68, Section 69, Section 70, Section 71, Section 73, Section 74, Section 75, Section 76, Section 77, Section 78 or Section 124 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita 2023 is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer;
Provided further that -
(a) in the event that the person against whom an offence under Section 64, Section 65, Section 66, Section 67, Section 68, Section 69, Section 70, Section 71, Section 73, Section 74, Section 75, Section 76, Section 77, Section 78, Section 79 or Section 124 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita 2023 is alleged to have been committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place of such person's choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be;
(b) the recording of such information shall be videographed;
(c) the Police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (6) of section 183 as soon as possible.
(2) A copy of the information as recorded under Sub-Section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant or the victim.
(3) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in Section 175, or receipt of information relating to the commission of any cognizable offence, which is made punishable for three years or more but less than seven years, the officer in charge of the police station may with the prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, -
(i) proceed to conduct preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case of proceeding in the matter within a period of fourteen days; or
(ii) proceed with investigation when there exists a Prima facie case.
(4) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1), may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Sanhita, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence failing which may make an application under sub-section (3) of Section 175 to the Magistrate.
COMMENT
The information given to a police officer and reduced to writing as required by this section is known as the "first information". "First information report" is not mentioned in the CrPC, but these words are understood to mean information recorded under this section. It is an important document and may be put in evidence to support or contradict the evidence of the person who gave the information. The investigation under this Chapter proceeds on the first information. When any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before the officer-in charge of a police station, he has no option but to register the case on the basis thereof.
2013 Amendment - The 2013 Amendment Act inserted a proviso through the Criminal Law(Amendment) Act, 2013, which is intended to make the law more sensitive to gender-equality.
The first proviso lays down that when information is given by a woman in relation to offences mentioned in the said proviso, such information shall be recorded by a woman police officer or any woman officer. The second proviso lays down that when an information relating to offences mentioned in the proviso is committed against a mentally or physically disabled person, such information shall be recorded at the residence of such person or at a place convenient to that person's choice in the presence of an interpreter or a social educator. It has been further provided that recording of such information shall be videographed and the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a judicial Magistrate under clause(a) of Section 164(5A) of CrPC.
In Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP, a 5 member Bench of the Supreme Court reiterated that registration of FIR relating to sexual offence is mandatory without any more than a preliminary enquiry that it discloses a cognizable offence. It is to be recorded in the FIR book by giving a unique annual number to each FIR to enable strict tracking of each and every registered FIR by the superior police officers, as well as by the competent court to which copies of each FIR is required to be sent. The word 'Complaint' which occured in previous two Codes of 1861 and 1872 was deleted and in that place, the word 'information was substituted in the Codes 1882 and 1898, which word is now used in Section 154, 155, 157 and 190(c) of the Present Code of 1973.
2018 Amendment - Section 154 CrPC, 1973 has been recently amended vide the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018. The 2018 Amendment Act has substituted the words "section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, Section 376B, Section 376C, Section 376D" in Section 154. The changes has been made so as to bring the newly inserted sections 376AB, 376DA and 376DB of the Indian Penal Code within the purview of section 154.
Object - The principle object of FIR from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion, and from the point of view of the investigating authorities is to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps to trace and bring to book the guilty. The FIR in a criminal case is extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The object of insisting upon promt lodging of FIR is to obtain prior information regarding the circumstances in which crime was committed, the names of actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye-witnesses. It does not constitute substantive evidence; it can, however, be used as a privious statement for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction of its maker under Section 157 or Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It can by no means be utilised for contradicting or discrediting other witnesses.
Evidentiary value and State of mind of person lodging FIR - The Supreme Court has thus spoken on this subject:
The FIR gives information of the commission of a cognizable crime. It may be made by the complainant or by any other person knowing about the commission of such an offence. It is intended to set the criminal law in motion. Any information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is required to be reduced to writing by the officer in charge of the 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. It cannot be used as evidence against maker if he himself becomes an accused not to corroborate or contradict other witnesses. It is not the requirement of law that the minuest details be recorded in the FIR lodge immediately after the occurence. The fact of the state of mental agony of the person making the FIR who generally is the victim himself, if not dead, or the relation or associates of the deceased victim apparently under the shock of the occurence reported has always to be kept in mind.
FIR on statement of accused - Admissibility - The celebrated case on the point is Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar. In that case, the accused, who has committed four murders, had gone to the police with the murder weapon and on his statement, FIR was registered. The Supreme Court dissected the fardbeyan into 18 parts as inculpatory and exculpatory statements and held that all the inculpatory parts of the statements are hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act and were inadmissible in evidence. In a recent decision, the SC held that the FIR recorded on the statement of the accused is not admissible as confession.
Police duty to record information - When the petitioner approaches the police and prays for registration of FIR, the police has no option but to register it and thereafter start investigations.
Refusal to record an 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. Information about cognizable offence would have to be recorded and forwarded to the police station having jurisdiction. An FIR was refused to be recorded at the police station, but the Circle inspector proceeded to the place of occurence on receiving information about murder through a constable without making any entries in the police records and started investigation. Only then, he received the written report from the complainant after he returned to the village from the police station. The Supreme Court held that the written complaint could not be treated as an FIR as it would amount to a statement made during investigation and is hit by section 162 CrPC. (181 BNSS).
Section 154 or Section 173 of BNSS is mandatory. The concerned officer is duty bound to register the case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence.
Value of FIR - The FIR is the first version of the incident as received by the police. The statements in the FIR must naturally get their due weight.
The Supreme Court has observed that an FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopedia of events which is expected to contain all the minute details of the prosecution case, it may be sufficient if the broad effects of the prosecution case are stated in the FIR. The fact that minute details are not mentioned should not be taken to mean the non-existence of the fact stated. FIR is not expected to contain all the details of the prosecution case; it may be sufficient if the broad facts of the prosecution case alone appear. Omission in the first statement of the informant is not fatal to the case. The impact of the omission has to be adjudged in the totality of the circustances and the veracity of the evidence. Thus merely because the names of the accused persons are not mentioned in the FIR, it cannot be a ground to raise doubts about the prosecution case.
FIR after inquest report - An FIR was recorded after inquest report. The question was whether the FIR had lost its authencity. The Court said that such loss of authenticity was not a universal rule to be applied in all cases and under all circumstances. The Court explained the object of preparation of inquest report and its evidentiary value. (Sambhu Das v. State of Assam)
Death of person lodging FIR - Where the person lodging the FIR died, the SC held that the contents of the FIR could be used for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting the person if he had been examined but not as substantive piece of evidence.
FIR serves as early information - Effect of delay - The provisions as to an information report are enacted to obtain early information of alleged criminal activity, to record the circumstances before there is time for them to be forgotten or embellished and the report can be put in evidence when the informant is examined if it is desired to do so. It becomes necessary for the prosecution to satisfactorily explain the delay. Even a long delay can be condoned where the informant has no motive for implicating the accused.
Investigation by CBI - The Supreme Court said in a case before it: "Though the investigation was condoned by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the provisions under Chapter XII of the Code would apply to such investigation. The "police" referred to in the Chapter, for the purpose of investigation, would apply to the officer/officers of the Delhi Police Establishment Act. On completion of the investigation, the report has to filed by CBI in the manner provided in section 173(2) of the Code, with the exception that the Magistrate referred to in the section would be understood as a Special Judge when the offence involved is under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Difference Between FIR and Complaint
The new Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which replaces the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, provides the legal framework for both. The fundamental difference lies in the nature of the offence and the authority to whom the information is given.
A First Information Report (FIR) is the formal mechanism to set the criminal law in motion for serious crimes. It is governed primarily by Sections 173 to 176 of the BNSS. An FIR is information about the commission of a cognizable offence—a serious crime like murder, rape, or theft—where the police have the authority to arrest without a warrant and investigate without the need for a court's permission. It is always given to the officer-in-charge of a police station. Upon registering an FIR, the police are empowered to immediately begin their investigation, which includes collecting evidence, examining witnesses, and making arrests. The process culminates in the police filing a report to the Magistrate under Section 193 of the BNSS, which is either a Chargesheet (if evidence is found) or a Closure Report (if no evidence is found). The FIR itself is not a sworn statement.
In contrast, a Complaint is defined under Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS. It is "any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Sanhita, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but it does not include a police report." The procedure for dealing with a complaint is outlined in Section 210 of the BNSS. While a complaint can technically be for any offence, it is the standard legal procedure for non-cognizable offences (less serious crimes like simple hurt or defamation), where the police cannot investigate without a Magistrate's order. Unlike an FIR, filing a complaint does not trigger an automatic police investigation. The Magistrate must first examine the complainant and witnesses on oath in a sworn statement. After this examination, the Magistrate has several options: to dismiss the complaint, order an inquiry, issue process (summons/warrant) directly against the accused, or refer the case to the police to be treated as an FIR.
In practical terms, if you are a victim of a serious crime like theft or assault, you must file an FIR with the police to initiate an immediate investigation. However, if your neighbour is defaming you (a non-cognizable offence), you would file a complaint before a Magistrate. Furthermore, if the police refuse to register an FIR for a cognizable offence, you can use the complaint mechanism by approaching the Magistrate, who can then direct the police to investigate. In essence, an FIR is the trigger for a police-led investigation for serious crimes, while a complaint is a petition to the judiciary to seek action, primarily for less serious crimes or when the police fail to act. The BNSS has largely retained this core distinction from the old CrPC.
0 Comments