BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA

MODULE- 2 INITIATION OF CRIMINAL MACHINERY – PRE-REQUISITES

2.1 FIRST INFORMATION REPORT, NON COGNIZABLE REPORTS, POLICE DISCRETION IN

REGISTRATION OF FIR

PROF. (DR) SATYAJIT MOHANTY, IPS RETD

CLASSROOM LINK

 Tittle: BNSS B.A,LL.B. (III Sem)

 Class Code: zkkewrhq
 Mail id: [Link]@[Link]
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DISCUSS ?

 First Information Report [ S,173 BNSS]

 Zero FIR, e-FIR, discretion in registration of FIR [S. 173 (2)]
 Multiple FIR on same facts, Counter FIR, Evidentiary value of FIR
 Non - cognizable Report [S.175 BNSS]
REFERENCE BOOKS

 BNSS: Dhirajlal Ratanlal, Lexis Nexis Justice ML Singhal

 R V Kelkar's Criminal Procedure by K.N. Chandrasekharan Pillai
FIRST INFORMATION REPORT – FIR

 The report first recorded by the police relating to the commission of a cognizable case is the First Information Report
giving information on the cognizable crime.
 Characteristics:
 1. It is a piece of information given to the police officer.
 2. The information must relate to a cognizable offence.
 3. The information is reported first in point of time.
 4. The victim of the cognizable offence or someone on his/her behalf gives information and lodges a complaint with the
police.
 5. This is the information on the basis of which investigation begins
 The term ‘First Information Report’ has not been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
 Rather the term has not been used except in Sec. 230 which requires the Magistrate to furnish to the accused a copy of
the First Information Report recorded under section 173 (1) of BNSS.
 Characteristics
 [Link] information of the commission of the offence may be orally made or in writing,
 7. If made orally, the same should be recorded in writing by the police and signed by the informant who may or may not
be the victim.
 8. A copy of the FIR has to be furnished free of cost to the First Informant.
 9. An FIR need not contain all the facts. If the name of the accused is not known, then also the FIR can be lodged.
 10. Generally an FIR should be lodged promptly as delay could raise doubts in the mind of the Court regarding its
veracity and the benefit of doubt would go to the accused.
 11. The substance of information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is to be entered in a book to be
kept at every police station in such a form as the State govt may prescribe ( known as general Diary or Station Diary)
 However, cause delay in reporting the matter should be clearly mentioned to allay such doubts.
 A cryptic telegram or phone call, which gives vague information, cannot be treated as FIR (Damodar v. State of
Rajasthan, AIR 2003 4414)
 FIR is not an encyclopedia. It need not contain an exhaustive account of the incident. Minor omissions can be ignored
where prosecution evidence is otherwise found reliable. ( Ramesh Patil v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1988, SC 28
IS THE ACCUSED ENTITLED A COPY?

 SC in Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India (Writ Petition (Crl.) No .68 of 2016) rules that an
accused is entitled to get a copy of the First Information Report at an earlier stage than as prescribed under Sec
230 BNSS/ Sec. 207 of the Cr.P.C
 FIRs are to be uploaded on the police website within 24 hrs, if not sensitive in nature
 Accused can get certified copies from the police or court immediately after registration or submission to the
court, as the case may be
 [Link] General [Link]
DELAY IN FILING FIR - EFFECT
 “Law has not fixed any time for filing FIR, as such a delayed FIR is not illegal. A mere delay in lodging the FIR cannot
be a ground by itself for throwing the prosecution case abroad. If the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the
Court, it cannot be counted against the prosecution.” (Gurudev Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2003)
 “Unless there are indications of fabrication, the Court cannot reject the prosecution version as given in the FIR
and later substantiated by the evidence merely on the ground of delay.” (Tara Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR
1991, SC, 63)
 “There is no hard and fast rule that any delay in lodging FIR would automatically render the prosecution case
doubtful. There is no mathematical formula by which an inference may be drawn either way merely on account of
delay in lodging of the FIR.” (Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh, AIR 2003 SC1164)
 “Whether the delay is so long as to throw a cloud of suspicion on the seeds of prosecution case must depend
upon a variety of factors which would vary from case to case. Even a long delay can be condoned, if witnesses have
no motive to implicate the accused. “(Ram Jog v. State of UP, AIR 1974 SC 606)
ZERO FIR & e-FIR
 Zero FIR: It can be registered at any police station, irrespective of jurisdiction and subsequent to registration or
preliminary investigation can be transferred to the police station having jurisdiction to investigate the offence
 It has been held that territorial jurisdiction should not prevent the police officer from recording the FIR and
forwarding the same to the police station having jurisdiction over the alleged offence - State of AP v. Punati
Ramube, 1993, Cr L J 3684 SC), Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (1999) 8 SCC 728
 This is known as “zero FIR”: “e-FIR” is that which is given by electronic means ( to be signed within 3 days)
 Now part of BNSS

▪ CrPC S.154 : Every information ▪ BNSS S.173: Every information relating to the commission
relating to the commission of a of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where the
cognizable offence, if given orally to offence is committed, may be given orally or by electronic
an officer in charge of a police station, communication to an officer in charge of a police station,
shall be reduced to writing by him or and if given:
under his direction, and be read over (i) orally, it shall be reduced to writing by him or under his
to the informant; direction, and be read over to the informant;
MULTIPLE FIR & COUNTER FIR

 The court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the test of sameness is to
be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or
are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction.
 If the answer is in the affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed.
 However, in case the contrary is proved, where the version in the second FIR is different and they are in respect
of two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible.
 In case the accused in the first FIR comes forward with a different version or counterclaim in respect of the same
incident, investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted - Babubhai vs State of Gujarat, 2010 (12) SCC
254 Surender Kaushik & Ors vs State of U.P & Ors, 2013 AIR SCW 1140
IS REGISTRATION OF FIR OBLIGATORY OR DISCRETIONARY ?

 The registration of FIR is either on the basis of the information furnished by the informant under
 Section 173 (1) of the Sanhita or otherwise under Section 176 (1) of the Sanhita is obligatory.
 The obligation to register FIR has inherent advantages:
 a) It is the first step to ‘access to justice’ for a victim.
 b) It upholds the ‘Rule of Law’ inasmuch as the ordinary person brings forth the commission of a cognizable crime in the
knowledge of the State.
 c) It also facilitates swift investigation and sometimes even prevention of the crime. In both cases, it only effectuates the
regime of law.
 d) It leads to less manipulation in criminal cases and lessens incidents of ‘ante-dates’ FIR or deliberately delayed FIR.
 Five circumstances cited for preliminary inquiry (as illustration, not exhaustive: thereby endorsing preliminary enquiry)
by the police officer; matrimonial dispute, inordinate delay, corruption cases, commercial offence, medical negligence (
Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP AIR 2014 SC 187 )
THE POSITION IN BNSS

 BNSS S.173 (3): Without prejudice to the provisions contained in section 175, on 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 for proceeding in
the matter within a period of fourteen days; or
 (ii) proceed with investigation when there exists a prima facie case.
 However, in case of sexual offences and acid attack, the law has made it mandatory to record the information by a
woman police officer, videography of the statement is made mandatory and at the place of victim’s residence or
any place of her choice
 But by virtue of sub sec. (3) the registration is made discretionary in large number of other cases
RECOURSE IN CASE OF NON-ACCEPTANCE OF FIR BY POLICE

 There are two legal recourses: 1. the superior police officer to be moved 2. the Court can be approached
 S. 173(4) BNSS: Aggrieved person 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
 S 175 (3) BNSS: an aggrieved person can move Court having jurisdiction in form of a complaint petition
 Pre-conditions: 1. Affidavit that the person has exhausted the route to SP u/s 173(4)
2. Submission has been made in this regard by the police officer
3. Inquiry by the Magistrate, if he thinks it fit
Priyanka Srivastava & Anr vs State of U.P.& Ors, 2015 AIR SCW 2075, Babu Venkatesh vs The State of
Karnataka, (2022) 5 SCC 639
EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF FIR
 FIR does not constitute substantive evidence; it can be used as a previous statement for the purpose of
corroboration and contradiction of its maker under Sec 160 or Sec 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniam (BSA)
 FIR is relevant under Sec 6 of the BSA; any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation
for any fact in issue or relevant fact; soon after the occurrence the victim made a complaint before the police
relating to the offence and the circumstances are, therefore, relevant
 As per Section 26(1) of the BSA, if the informant dies and the statement recorded by the police in the FIR
includes the reason for his death or about the events that might lead to his death, then it can act as substantial
proof to validate the reasons for his death. This acts as a dying declaration, wherein the person testifies about the
circumstances leading to his death.
 The Supreme Court of India ruled that a First Information Report (FIR) filed by a deceased person cannot be
admitted as substantive evidence in criminal trials unless it qualifies as a dying declaration. (Lalita vs.
Vishwanath & Ors 2025 INSC 173)
BURKING OF CRIME : CONCERN OF THE SUPREME COURT

 Quoting various studies, the SC views that the number of FIRs not registered is approximately equivalent to the
number of FIRs actually registered.
 Keeping in view the NCRB figures that show that about 67 lakh cognizable offences were registered in India during the
year 2024, the burking of crime may itself be in the range of about 67 lakh every year.
 Thus, it is seen that such a large number of FIRs are not registered every year, which is a clear violation of the rights of
the victims of such a large number of crimes.
 Burking of crime leads to dilution of the rule of law in the short run; and also has a very negative impact on the rule of
law in the long run since people stop having respect for rule of law.
 Thus, non-registration of such a large number of FIRs leads to a definite lawlessness in the society
 Only, S.199 BNS provides for punishment (6 months to 2 years imprisonment and fine) of a police officer for non-
registration of FIR pertaining to sexual offences
 Therefore, reading Section 154 in any other form would not only be detrimental to the scheme of the Code but also to
the society as a whole - Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP AIR 2014 Supreme Court 187
NON-COGNIZABLE CASE

 S. 2(1)(o): "non-cognizable offence" means an offence for which, and "non-cognizable case" means a case in which,
a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant;
 S. 174 BNSS: No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having
power to try such case or commit the case for trial
 Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be
a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.
 Officer in Charge of a police station upon receipt of a report of non-cognizable nature shall enter the facts in a
diary prescribed for the purpose → (i) refer the informant to the Magistrate; (ii) forward the daily diary report of
all such cases fortnightly to the Magistrate
 If Magistrate orders for investigation, the police officer shall investigate as in case of a cognizable offence
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS

 Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (1999) 8 SCC 728

 Lalita vs. Vishwanath & Ors 2025 INSC 173)
 Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, 2013 (13) SCALE 559
 Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India and Others WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.68 OF 2016
 Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, (2022) 5 SCC 639
THANK YOU