“The strength of justice lies in the honesty of the very first report.”
INTRODUCTION
The term first information report FIR is the primary or the earliest report given to the police about the Commission of cognizable offence; it contains information relating to a cognizable offence which must be recorded by the officer in charge of the police station. It can be given in oral or in writing. If given orally it must be reduced to writing, read over to the informant, and signed. The in the BNSS the concept of zero fir comes into picture with estates FIR can be logged at any police station regardless of place of the crime.
HISTORY
- Police act, 1861 enacted after the 1857 revolt which introduced the first structured police administration, police begin maintaining recent crime registers which letter influenced FIR documentation.
- 1861 to 1882 police stations were mandated to keep General Diaries; station house registers, books maintained by police as a record is now modern FIR registers.
- In 1882 the idea of recording the first information about the cognizable office begin to appear in police manual.
- CrPC 1898 first time created a statutory basis for FIR section 154 of crpc provided information relating to a cognizable offence which must be written& signed.
- The CrPC of 1973 replace the 1898 code in which section 154 retained the same structure but introduce improvements like mandatory copy to informant and for the provisions for women’s complaints.
- T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001), Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash (2004), Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP (2013)
- After the nirbhaya case of 2012 the concept of zero FIR comes into picture and the concept of online FIR filing for missing persons vehicle theft or cyber crimes.
- The new Bhartiya nagarik Suraksha Sanhita replaced older CrPC and now the concept of FIR is under section 173 of BNSS which add new developments like electronic fir allowed by law, digital signature and electronic verification within 3 days, zero fir formally recognized, mandatory audio video recording for crimes against women and vulnerable groups.
Essential characteristics of the FIR
- Is not a substantive piece of evidence but can be used to corroborate or contradict.
- It is the first report which sets the investigation in motion.
- Must relate to the Commission of a cognizable offence.
- It must not be vague rather is should contain basic fact.
Purpose of FIR
- To said the criminal law machinery into motion
- Help police take immediate preventive and investigative steps
- Insurance transparency and accountability of initial police action
Relevant section
- Section 173 talks about information to police in case of cognizable offence this is the main session that defines FIR as any information regarding a cognizable offence must be recorded by the officer in charge and the information may be given in oral, writing or electronically which must be signed within 3 days, police must provide a free copy of FIR to the informant and it must be entered in the register or digital system, women victim can get FIR recorded by a woman police officer and for sexual offences must be audio video recorded.
- Section 174 talks about information in non-cognizable offences police should record the information in writing and no FIR is registered for non-cognizable offence. Police cannot investigate without magistrate order and informant must be referred to the magistrate for remedy.
- Session 175 talks about procedure for investigation of non-cognizable case with magistrate permission police must obtain a return order from magistrate to investigate non cognizable cases, once permission is granted police may exercise power of a normal investigation and chargesheet can be filed after investigation
- Section 176 talks about complaint to magistrate if the officer in charge refuses to register FIR under section 173 the complainant may approach Superintendent of police or magistrate. The magistrate can then order an investigation and insure protection against police in action.
- Section 193 talks about duty to maintain daily diary or general diary. Police must maintain a general diary of all the information received, FIR is separate but general diary entry confirms timing and add authenticity which insure transparency and accountability.
CASES
1. State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others (1992)
Facts: This case involved the quashing of an FIR registered against Bhajan Lal, the then Chief Minister of Haryana, on charges of criminal misconduct. He challenged the FIR, claiming it was motivated by political malice. The key legal question was the scope of the High Court’s power to quash an FIR and the corresponding duty of the police during registration.
Judgment & Relevance: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, allowing the prosecution to proceed, but delivered a monumental verdict setting out the seven categories of cases where the High Court can use its inherent to quash an FIR.
Key Contribution to FIR: This case affirmed the High Court’s power to quash an FIR only in exceptional circumstances
2.Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP and others (2013)
Facts: This was a reference case before a Constitution Bench to settle the ambiguity regarding the mandatory nature of FIR registration, specifically whether a preliminary inquiry was permissible before the registration of an FIR in all cases.
Judgment & Relevance: The Constitution Bench settled the debate, holding that registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC (now Section 173 BNSS) if the information discloses a cognizable offence. However, the court identified five exceptional categories where a preliminary inquiry (PE) may be conducted before registration to ascertain if a cognizable offense is disclosed:
- Matrimonial disputes/Family disputes.
- Commercial offenses.
- Medical Negligence cases.
- Corruption cases.
- Cases where there has been a delay of 3 months or more in reporting the FIR.
Key Contribution to FIR: This case codified the exceptions to the mandatory FIR rule, creating a balance between the police’s duty and the misuse of the law. This judgment directly influenced the BNSS, 2023, Section 173(3), which mandates a preliminary inquiry for offenses punishable between three and less than seven years.
3. T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001)
Facts: The case arose from police firing at a mob, leading to the registration of several FIRs related to the same incident—one against the police officers and others against the rioters. The question was whether multiple FIRs could be filed for the same incident.
Judgment & Relevance: The Supreme Court ruled that there can be no second FIR and consequently, no fresh investigation in respect of the same cognizable offence or a criminal transaction arising out of the same facts. However, the Court clarified that Cross FIRs (two FIRs filed by opposing parties detailing different versions of the same incident, such as a scuffle) are permissible, provided they are treated as counter-cases or further information to the first FIR.
Key Contribution to FIR: This judgment clarified the rule against multiple FIRs for the same occurrence and established the legal status of cross-cases arising from the same transaction. Your statement that the court “clubs together both the FIR” is a simplified reference to the procedure of treating the subsequent FIR as a counter-case and having a single investigation into the transaction.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion the FIR is a starting point of every criminal investigation and serves as a vital safeguard against arbitrary police action police stop with the introduction of BNS the process has become more instructive structured technology driven and citizen centric provision related to digital FIR, zero fir, audio video recording and remedies for refusal have enhanced accountability the court has also reinforced that fi must be registered promptly in cognizable cases therefore the fire under bns represent a blend of modern reforms and established legal principle.
