JUDICIAL QUERY NO. 3

I am attaching a recent Full Bench decision of Bombay High Court dealing with the question as to whether the officer in charge of a Police Station has to register an FIR as required under Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure or he has any authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry preregistration.

As to what constitutes delay in lodging first information report is a question of fact depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case, no hard and fast rule can be laid down to determine as to which information is prompt and which report is delayed. Distance between police station and scene of occurrence is not only factor to be considered in determining the question. There are variety of circumstances, which Court has to keep in mind in order to decide on the question of promptness or otherwise as to lodging of first information report viz., the distance between police station and place of occurs, means of communication, ignorance on account of rustic simplicity etc.

First Information Report cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence nor the contents of the report can be used to furnish testimony against the accused. F.I.R. can be used to either contradict or to corroborate the maker thereof.

Kiran sir delay in lodging FIR is not fetal to prosecution. But it may be relevant fact and can be taken into decide the case particularly in case where the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidences. Refer Ramdas v. State of maharashtra 2007 sc

There can be investigation before FIR. Section 157 Of Crpc uses the word "otherwise" which shows that there can be investigation without FIR

Answer to your second question recording of FIR is mandatory in case police officer recieve the information of cognizable case. So police officer is not right in ignoring the first information.

FIR is never a substantive piece of evidence so it can't be used to corroborate the charge. Sir correct me if i m wrong in any case. sorry i spamed the thread. Actually i wanna member to read my whole answer separatly.

Delay in FIR is not fatal for the case. It depends upon the circumstances of the case. however it put the burden to explain the cause of delay

 

Appeal (crl.) 1020 of 2007 PETITIONER:Silak Ram and Anr RESPONDENT:State of Haryana DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/08/2007 BENCH:Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN

Delay in lodging FIR by itself would not be sufficient to discard the prosecution version unless it is unexplained and such delay coupled with the likelihood of concoction of evidence. There is no hard and fast rule that delay in filing FIR in each and every case is fatal and on account of

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gian Chand, (2001) 6 SCC 71, wherein this Court observed:

 "Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting

the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in

lodging the first information report. Delay has the effect of putting the court

on its guard to search if any plausible explanation has been offered for the

delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If the prosecution

fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is a possibility of

embellishment in the prosecution version on account of such delay, the delay

would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the

satisfaction of the court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground for

disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution case. "

In Ravinder Kumar and Another v. State of Punjab, (2001) 7 SCC 690, this Court observed:

 "When there is criticism on the ground that FIR in a case was delayed the court has to look at the reason why there was such a delay. There can be a variety of genuine causes for FIR lodgment to get delayed. Rural people might be ignorant of the need for informing the police of a crime without any lapse of time. This kind of unconversantness is not too uncommon among urban people also. They might not immediately think of going to the police station. Another possibility is due to lack to adequate transport facilities for the informers to reach the police station. The third, which is a quite common bearing, is that the kith and kin of the deceased might take some appreciable time to regain a certain level of tranquillity of mind or sedativeness of temper for moving to the police station for the purpose of furnishing the requisite information. Yet another cause is, the persons who are supposed to give such information themselves could be so physically impaired that the police had to reach them on getting some nebulous information about the

incident.

c) SINCE FIR is not a statement recorded during the course of investigation

it is not hit by the prohibition contained in S.162 Cr.P.C. and therefore can

be used for Corroborating the informant.

b) Registering FIR after investigation would not be valid

because it would be a statement recorded during the course of investigation

and therefore it would amount to be a S.161statement and

therefore would be hit by the bar contained in S.162 Cr.p.c.