The term first information report has not been defined in the code of procedure rather the term has not been used expert in section 207 which requires the magistrate to furnish to the accused a copy of the first information report recorded under the section 154 (1) of the code. The report first recorded under by the police is the first relating to the commission of a cognizable case is the first information report giving information on the cognizable crime.

The basic purpose of filing a FIR is to set criminal law into motion and not to state all the minute details therein. A First Information Report is the initial step in a criminal case recorded by the police and contains the basic knowledge of the crime committed, place of commission, time of commission, who was the victim, etc. The definition for the First Information Report has been provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the virtue of Sec. 154, which lays down that:
"Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, 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, 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".

What kind of information is considered in an F.I.R

Only the information related to the commission of a cognizable offence can be terms as an FIR it is not necessary that the information must set out every detail of the case. It need not sate the name of the accused also. What is necessary is that it must disclosed information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, information received in the following cases is not considered as FIR:

• Information received after commencement of the investigation.
• Telephonic information, unless it has been given by a known person who discloses his identity and the message contains all the necessary facts which constitute an offence and such a message is reduced to writing by S.H.O.
• Information of mere assemblage of some persons.
• Indefinite, vague and unauthorized information.

Providing a Copy of FIR to the Accused

Under Indian criminal law, the informant, as seen earlier, is entitled to get a copy of the first information report lodged by him at the police station free of cost. It is a necessary document in a criminal case and can majorly support the case of the informant or the victim. However, the accused person is also entitled to get a copy of the first information report. Sec. 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 entitles the accused to get the copy of the first information report the investigation has been completed by the police in the said case, and the charge sheet has been filed in the Court. The provision states that the Magistrate, in such circumstances, must furnish to the accused a copy of the FIR free of cost.

Further, on analysis of Sec. 173(5) and (7) of the Code pf Criminal Procedure, 1973, it can be easily implied that the police may also provide copy of the first information report to the accused free of cost after the filing of the charge sheet. The essential pre-requisite of both Sec. 207 and Sec. 173 is that the police must have filed the charge sheet in the subjected matter.

There have been some cases where the Court has provided the accused with the copy of the FIR even before filing of charge sheet and on his request and payment of a certain fee. Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 74 lays down the definition of a 'public document'. In many decisions, the Courts in India have held the first information report to fit within the definition of 'public document' and hence, have held that u/s 76 of the Evidence Act, certified copy of the FIR has to be given to the accused person on his request on payment of the applicable legal fees by every public officer (such as the officer in charge of the police station) having the custody of such document. 

Cognizable Offences

Cognizable Offences have been defined u/s 2(c) of the C.P.C., 1973. This is the class of offences in which the police has the power to make an arrest without a warrant. These offences are serious in nature, and thus the aim is to prevent the culprit or accused of harming others. Hence, the police have been given authority to make an arrest without a warrant so that precious time involved in all the legal procedures of issuing a warrant is saved. What offences fall under the category of cognizable offences has been specified in the first schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Though there is no pre-defined pattern of classification of offences into cognizable and non-cognizable offences but on a study, it can be seen that offences having a punishment of more than three years are classified as cognizable offences and those who have punishment for less than three years are referred to as non-cognizable offences.

Who can lodge an FIR

An FIR may be filed by any person who either witnessed or has knowledge of the commission of the commission of a cognizable offence. The police officer is under the obligations to file such an FIR for the cognizable offence. The person whom an FIR is being filed can be the person who either committed an offence has knowledge of the commission of an offence, witnessed the offence or abetted such an offence.

The information doesn't need to have first hand information about offence. Even an anonymous notice to the police that contains information about such an offence can be treated as a formal complaint. The police officer can also lodge an FIR himself if he knowledge that a cognizable offence has been committed. Halluv. state of MP (1974), it was held that section 154 of the Cr.PC takes about the information that an information holds relating to the cognizable offence given to the officer in charge thus it is not necessary for the informant to have personal knowledge of such an offence.

Refusal to Lodge an FIR by the Police

Sometimes, the police may refuse to lodge a first information report. This can be both legal and illegal. In cases where they don't have jurisdiction or is not in their legal capacity to take cognizance or the offence is of non-cognizable nature, it will be held legal. But where police refuses to file the complaint for blatant reasons, without any substantial legal ground, it is contrary to law.

When a police officer refuses to register the FIR on the ground that it discloses a non-cognizable offence, he must inform the informant and direct him to file a complaint to the magistrate. In case the offence committed is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of a police station, information should be recorded and forwarded to the appropriate police-station having jurisdiction, otherwise refusing to record on this ground will amount to dereliction of duty.

The compulsoriness of registering any information is also based on the understanding that the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence [30] and can only be used to contradict or corroborate the contents. As per Sec. 155(1) of the Cr.P.C., of a police officer receives information about commission of a non-cognizable offence committed in jurisdiction of the police station, he should enter the substance of the case in the station diary and refer the informant to approach the concerned Magistrate.

Evidentiary Value

An FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence that is it cannot be considered as evidence of facts stated there in. however, FIR may be used to for the following purpose:

• It can be used to corroborate an informant witness under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. But it cannot be used to contradict or discredit other witnesses.
• It can be used to contradict an informant witness under Section 145 of the Evidence Act.
• FIR can be used by the defence to impeach the credit of the maker under Section 155(3) of the Evidence Act.
• A non-confessional FIR given by an accused can be used as an admission against him under Section 21 of the Evidence Act.
• FIR can be used as a dying declaration as substantive evidence if it relates to the cause, occasion, circumstance, or fact within the meaning of Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act.

If the accused himself lodges the FIR, it cannot be used for corroboration or contradiction because the accused cannot be a prosecution witness and the would very rarely offer himself to be a defence witness u/s 315 of the code. 
Delay in Recording the F.I.R. by the Officer in Charge of the Police Station
In some cases, the police choses to first visit the scene of the crime to ascertain an idea about the incident and afterwards records the F.I.R. on the statement of witnesses present. This might amount to be wrongful on the part of police as in case of a cognizable offence, the police must register the complaint first and then it has power to investigate the case. This amounts to inordinate delay and the first information report is likely to be quashed on the ground of inordinate delay. The Court has held that F.I.R quashed due to inordinate delay in investigation not to be interfered with.

In the matter of Tara Singh and others vs. The State of Punjab, the court gave an important view on the law regarding delay in recording F.I.R. in the following words:
"The delay in giving the FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, one cannot expect these villagers to rush to the police station immediately after the occurrence. Human nature as it is, the kith and kin who have witnessed the occurrence cannot be expected to act mechanically with all the promptitude in giving the report to the police. At times being grief-stricken because of the calamity it may not immediately occur to them that they should give a report.

After all, it is but natural in these circumstances for them to take some time to go the police station for giving the report. Of course, in cases arising out of acute factions, there is a tendency to implicate persons belonging to the opposite faction falsely. In order to avert the danger of convicting such innocent persons the Courts should be cautious to scrutinize the evidence of such interested witnesses with greater care and caution and separate grain from the chaff after subjecting the evidence to a closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR also will have to be scrutinised carefully.

However, unless there are indications of fabrication, the Court cannot reject the prosecution version as given in the FIR and laters substantiated by the evidence merely on the ground of delay. These are all matters for appreciation and much depends on the facts and circumstances of each case".

Human life is most essential and, in an incident, attempts should be made to make sure that the victim lives. Rushing to Hospital to save victim's life instead of first going to police station is a satisfactory explanation for delay in filing F.I.R.

If the delay is unexplained and some blatant reasons are at the base of the excuse, then such a delay could prove fatal for the prosecution case. However, the delay alone is not sufficient to prove fatal to the prosecution. This rule of law has been upheld by Courts in many cases.

In Ramdas & Ors vs. State of Maharashtra, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "mere delay in lodging FIR not by itself necessary fatal to prosecution case". Similarly, recently, Bombay High Court, in a rape case, held that delay in lodging the first information report (FIR) by a rape survivor cannot be a ground for acquittal of the accused. Further, the delay alone in itself cannot be a ground for suspicion that the F.I.R is not credible, just as the promptness is not sufficient reason to believe that it is perfectly authentic.

In Kesar Singh vs. State of Haryana the Apex court observed that delay of 6 days in lodging FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case. In this case injuries were inflicted on the deceased and death occurred after six days, deceased remained in the hospital for treatment, matter was not reported to Police by doctors.
 
Delay in Dispatching the F.I.R. to the Magistrate 
Sometimes, the first information report reaches the Magistrate late due to certain administrative actions as they are time taking and out of the control of both informant and police. If such a delay, on the part of the officer in charge, can be explained, then the reliability of F.I.R. would automatically increase. In a case where the dispatch of the report to Magistrate was delayed on account of floods, it was held by the court that the delay has been explained and cannot prove fatal to the prosecution. There is no hard and fast rule that delay in filing FIR in each and every case is fatal and on account of such delay, prosecution version should be discarded.

Following are some circumstances which can be said to be reasonable explanations for delay on lodging F.I.R. are: fear of accused persons (psychological cause of delay), fear of damage of honour of family (psychological cause of delay), delay sue to shock caused by murder, Delay in FIR due to infliction of grievous injuries, to the injured person (physical cause of delay), motive of falsely implicating the accused, when facts mentioned in the complaint cannot be altered by mere delay, rough road, bad weather, non-availability of transport, when amicable settlement was started. In the case of Rahit Hazra & Others vs. State of West Bengal, the unexplained delay in registering F.I.R. was, as per the court, one of the reasons that did not let the prosecution prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Condonation of Reasonable delay in Lodging FIR– Delay in many cases brings the prosecution case out of the court and court has to look into the matter seriously for the purpose so that justice may be done to the victim person. All reasonable delay in lodging the FIR must be condoned in the interest of Justice, and the accused should not be allowed to take defences of technicalities and delay in Justice delivery system.

No Second F.I.R. – Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has expressed its views on delay in registering F.I.R. and laid down that there cannot be a second F.I.R. The first statements and story of informant is to be penned down in the F.I.R. and if there is a second complaint, the scope of getting a first-hand information is narrowed down. The Court has ruled that "A First Information Report cannot be lodged in a murder case after the inquest has been held." This view was upheld by the Apex Court of India in the matter of Mokab Ali & Others vs. State of West Bengal, where the inquest was held before the registration of first information report. Also, the registered F.I.R. reached the magistrate three days after registration.

False F.I.R.

A false FIR is a report lodged with the police that contains fabricated or exaggerated information about a crime that did not occur. It is intended to mislead law enforcement, often resulting in wrongful arrests, harassment, and prolonged legal battles for the innocent. Filing a false FIR is a criminal offence under Indian law, and those responsible can face legal action for misuse of the justice system.

Legal Provisions for False FIR

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)

Section 212

• Applicability: This section pertains to anyone legally required to provide truthful information to a public servant.
• Offense: Providing false information knowingly or with reason to believe it is false.
• Punishments:
  • Simple imprisonment for up to 6 months and/or a fine of up to ₹5,000.
  • If the false information involves the commission or prevention of an offence, or apprehension of an offender, the punishment extends to 2 years imprisonment (simple or rigorous) and/or a fine.

Section 216

• Applicability: This section addresses individuals legally bound by oath or affirmation to state the truth before a public servant or authorized authority.
• Offense: Making a false statement under oath knowingly, or without belief in its truth.
• Punishments: Imprisonment (simple or rigorous) for up to 3 years and/or a fine.

Recent Judgements on False FIRs

• Manoj Kumar Gupta and Others v. State of U.P. and Others (2024): The Allahabad High Court laid down guidelines for judicial officers filing FIRs in their personal capacity. The court ruled that such officers must seek the assent of their District Judge, except in cases involving severe offences like murder, rape, or dacoity.
• Varun Bagga v. State of Punjab and Another (2022): The Punjab and Haryana High Court criticized the misuse of the legal system through false FIRs, emphasizing that such actions stem from ego conflicts and disrupt justice.