Asked from: Uttar Pradesh
Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure outlines the provisions regarding the registration of the First Information Report (FIR). The Code classifies offences into two categories: cognizable and non-cognizable. An FIR is to be registered only in cases involving cognizable offences.
Section 154 mandates that the officer in charge of a police station is bound to record the FIR. However, it has become a common practice among police officers to avoid registering FIRs. The National Crime Records Bureau, a central government agency, is responsible for collecting and analyzing crime data. Since the FIR serves as the primary source of information for analyzing crime rates in various states, this reluctance to register FIRs undermines the integrity of crime statistics.
The FIR represents the first information regarding the commission of an offence and initiates the criminal justice process. It is the primary duty of the police to investigate crimes, and such investigation cannot commence unless an FIR is registered.
In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992) 1 SCC 335, Ramesh Kumari vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2006) 2 SCC 677, and Parkash Singh Badal vs. State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC, the Supreme Court of India opined:
“The officer in charge of a police station is not obliged under law, upon receipt of information disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence, to register a case; rather, the discretion lies with him, in appropriate cases, to hold some preliminary inquiry concerning the veracity or otherwise of the accusations made in the report.”
As a result, police officers have often exercised discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR. However, this discretion has frequently been misused.
Importantly, Section 154 does not explicitly grant such discretion. In Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Others, AIR 2014 SC, the Supreme Court revised its earlier position and held that the police are bound to register an FIR if the information reveals the commission of a cognizable offence.
The Court unequivocally clarified that Section 154 mandates the registration of FIRs upon receiving information about a cognizable offence. Nevertheless, in certain circumstances, a preliminary inquiry may still be warranted.
Thus, the police cannot refuse to register an FIR if the information suggests that a cognizable offence has occurred. Section 154 allows the information to be conveyed orally; in such cases, the officer in charge must reduce the oral information to writing.
Although an FIR is not considered substantive evidence, it does carry evidentiary value. During trial, it can be used to corroborate or contradict the statements of witnesses. Therefore, an FIR should be concise and accurately reflect the incident. It should not exaggerate facts to present a more severe offence than what actually occurred.
Information should be provided at the earliest opportunity, as delays in filing an FIR can suggest that the report was fabricated or manipulated to falsely implicate someone. If there is a delay, the informant should explain the reason within the FIR itself.
