BAILABLE AND NON BAILABLE OFFENCES

INTRODUCTION TO OFFENCE:

“Offence” Means any Act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force and includes and act in respect of which a complaint may be made under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act,  1871 (1 of 1871). The word “offence” is also defined by Section 40 of the Penal Code which runs as under: The word “offence” has the same meaning when the thing punishable under the special or local law is punishable under such law with imprisonment for a term of six months or upwards, whether with or without fine. According to the definition of the word “offence” given under the Criminal Produce Code, it is the act not the transaction which constitutes an offence. When several persons combine to commit forgery, the act of each forget is distinct from the act of another. The entire transaction does not constitute one offence. Firing of one shot at two persons constitutes one offence. Contempt of Court is not an offence.

Cognizable and Non-cognizable offences:

‘Cognizable offence’ and ‘cognizable case’.

“Cognizable offence” means an offence for which and “cognizable case” means a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant;

‘Non-cognizable offence’ and ‘non cognizable case’:

“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. What offends under the Penal Code are cognizable and what are not cognizable is indicated in Column 4 of the  First Schedule appended to the Criminal Procedure Code. Offences under other laws, punishable with death or imprisonment for or imprisonment for more than three years are cognizable offences and offences punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only are non-cognizable.

Where the F.I.R disclosed the commission of two offences, one being cognizable and the other non-cognizable and after investigation the police found that the commission or cognizable offence was not established and there was a clear case of non-cognizable offence and submitted its report accordingly, it was held that the Magistrate was competent to take cognizance of such offence because as both the offences arose out of the same set of facts, the investigation could not at all be bifurcated and as the police had power to make investigation notwithstanding the fact that one of the offences was non-cognizable, it could not be said that the report submitted by the police was not a report.

Bailable and Non-bailable offences :

“Bailable offence” means an offence which is shown as bailable in the First Schedule or which is made bailable by any other law for the time being in force; and non-bailable offence means any other offence.

Column 5 of the First Schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code shows as to what offences under the Penal Code are bailable one and what are non-bailable. As regards other offences under other laws, Part II of the First Schedule makes it clear that offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for three years and upward shall be non-bailable and for life or imprisonment for three years and upward shall be non-bailable and offences punishable with imprisonment for less than 3 years or with fine only shall be bailable. Word non-bailable does not mean that is such cases bail con not or shall not be granted. In bailable offences, bail is granted almost as or right.

 Complaint:

“Complaint” means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or un known, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.

Explanation. – A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable who such report is made only to a Magistrate or to a police. The complaint can be made even orally. But there must be an allegation which prima facie discloses the commission of an offence so that the Magistrate may take action. Complaint may not categories the elements of offence. It may not even mention the sections or the law applicable. There is no prescribed form in which complaint should be filed.

Complaint Case:

A case initiated on the bases of a complaint petition is generally classed as C.R case i.e. complaint Register case and a case initiated on the lodging of an Ejahar /FIR is classed as G.R. case, i.e. General Register case.

 First Information Report:

It is no where defined in the Code but generally speaking speaking the first information, relating to an offence received at the police station is known as the First Information Report. Such report may be in wring or an oral one.

 General Diary:

It is a book kept at the police station in which First Information Reports are entered.

Police Regulations provide that reports of cognizable offences shall be taken down in triplicate in the check receipt book and extracts of reports of non-cognizable offences shall be taken down in check receipt book.

Office-in-charge of Police Station:

“Officer-in-charge of a police station” includes, when the officer-in-change of the police station is absent form the station-house or unable from illness or other cause to perform his duties, the police officer present at the station-house who is next in rank to such officer and is above the rank of constable or, when the Government so directs, any other police officer so present.

 Occurrence report and special reports:

 In case of cognizable offences, it is incumbent on the officer-in-charge of the police station to send a report of the same to Magistrate concerned and such a report is called “occurrence report”.

According to Police Regulations when certain serious offences like dacoity, robbery, murder etc. are reported, copies of the report will have to be sent immediately in red-envelope to the superintendent, Distinct Magistrate, Magistrate and the Circle Inspector. According to copies of the report will have to be sent immediately in red-envelop to the Superintendent, District Magistrate, Magistrate and the Circle Inspector. According to copies of reports shall be sent to the  District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police in all important cases in which they may require special reports to be sent. Such reports are known as ‘special reports’.

 Investigation, inquiry and trial:

“Investigation” includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf;

“Inquiry” means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code by Magistrate or Court.

Thus, ‘inquiry’ is different not only from trial but also from investigation which is conducted by the police or any other person (Other than a Magistrate) duly authorized by a Magistrate. Inquiries are conducted only by Magistrates or courts.

Trial–It is defined no where in the code, but it refers to proceedings following a charge including the punishment of the offender. It is a judicial proceeding which ends either in a conviction or in acquittal. Although Trial is also conducted by courts but it is different from ‘Inquiry’.

The words “try” or “trial” have no fixed or universal meaning but they are words which must be construed with regard to the particular context in which they are used and with regard to the scheme and purpose of the measure concerned. But no proceedings can called “trial” unless the court is called upon to determine the issues arising between the parties. The word trial means the proceeding which commences when the case is called on with the presiding officer on the bench, the accused in the dock and the representative of the prosecution and durance, if the accused be defended, present in court for the hearing of the case.

Law does not contemplate the termination of a prosecution either initiated of a complaint or otherwise by the jurisdiction of the court which had seisin of the case, being cancelled. It can terminate by a dismissal of the complaint, a discharge of the accused, or by a conviction or an acquittal of the accused; the law knows of no other way of the proceeding by an order of superior court.

A trial begins with the framing of the charge against the accused. The other view of the same is that the trial begins not with the framing of the charge but when the accused refuses to plead or does not plead or claims to be tried.

The trial continues till the judgment is delivered. According to the privy Council pronouncement trial means all proceedings including the sentence, and therefore a trial can terminate only with judgment.

 Police diary or case diary:

It means a diary maintained by the investigating officer for entering day to day proceedings of investigation done in a particular case.

Police case:

If the case initiates on the lodging of the FIR with the officer‑in‑charge of a police station a copy of a copy the same is forwarded to the court whereupon a G.R case starts. The police immediately takes up investigation of the case and in      the event any person is arrested he is produced before the court within twenty four hours exclusive of the time consumed in the journey from the place of  arrest to the Magistrate’s court (Section 6l and 167). At this stage the court deals with bail matter of the person or persons arrested and may hold Test Identification parade, if any, of the accused or the stolen properties and may also record confessional statements, etc. The court shall wait for the result of the investigation which may come by way of a police report in the form of “charge sheet” for prosecution or “final report” for release of the accused persons.

On receipt of the police report the court sets really on motion. At these stages the Magistrate is to perform the most important task of scrutinizing the said report. Magistrate is quite competent to accept the final report and to discharge the accused (under sub‑section (2 B) of section‑202) part it from statements on record the Magistrate finds materials to warrant prosecution, he may take cognizance of the officer under clause (B) of section 190(l) (36 DLR(AD) 5). If any naraji petition is filed against the final report the said petition to be treated as a complaint and the Magistrate shall proceed according to section 200 or 202 and may warrant prosecution under clause (a) of section 190(l) on the basis of the result of such examination or inquiry. If the police submits charge‑sheet the magistrate shall took over the materials on record and on being satisfied shall accept same. This acceptance of the charge sheet amounts to taking cognizance of the case. Proceeding before a court starts on the acceptance of the charge‑sheet (36 DLR(AD) 14).

When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is tribal exclusively by the court of Sessions or by the chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate or Additional District Magistrate he shall send the same to the proper court for trial (Sections 205C and 205CC).

In so sending the case the accused may be enlarged on bail or remanded to custody. Generally bail is not granted in respect of offences triable by the court of sessions or by the other superior courts. If, however, for any reason bail is granted the accused be given a direction to appear before the court where trial will take place within such a period as the Magistrate thinks reasonable.

Report of a police officer or a police Report : It means a report which is submitted by a police officer after investigation of the case under section 173 of the code of Criminal procedure. This report may end in the charge ‑sheet or the Final Report. Charge ‑sheet “and “Final Report” are terms used very often through these have no mention in section 173.Charge Sheet: It means report of the investigating police officer for prosecution of the accused‑persons named therein. A Magistrate must not accept a charge‑sheet sweepingly. On the receipt of the charge‑sheet the Magistrate shall scrutinize the materials on record, such as , the F.I.R, the statements under section 161,164, the Dying Declaration , post Mortem Report , Injury Report Result of Test Identification parade, if any, etc . along with the sho9le case Diary , to ascertain as to whether the facts disclosed and materials collected warrant issuance of process against the accused ‑ person k. On his being satisfied that materials on record make4 out a prima facie case against the accused the Magistrate will accept the charge­ sheet, otherwise, he will reject the same. Acceptance of the charge‑sheet amounts to taking cognizance of the case and at this stage a case becomes a “pending case” ( 38 DLR 166+177).

Charge‑sheet cannot be used as evidence at the time of trial. But however, the court may look into it as a part of judicial record. Police may submit supplementary charge‑sheet in a case subsequently implicating more persons as accused. But once a charge‑sheet is submitted it cannot be withdrawn and final report cannot be submitted (36 DLR 63). But Magistrate can himself take cognizance against the accused not sent up in the charge‑ sheet if materials on record justify the same (47 DLR 478)

Final Report:

It is the report of the investigating police officer to the effect that the persons shown in the F.I.R. as the accuse4ds have not committed the offence. The Magistrate may accept the same and drop the case. But the Magistrate reserves the propriety to disagree with the final report and to take cognizance of the case if materials on record justify it u/s 190(l)(b) Cr. P.C. or to direct further investigation (36 DLR(AD)58).

Naraji Petition :

As against a final report the aggrieved person may file a Naraj (Ptotest) petition and in that case such petition is to be treated as a complaint and on examining the complainant and the witnesses u/s 200 Cr.p.c. he magistrate, if satisfied, in take cognizance u/s 190(l)(a) Cr.P.C. But once Magistrate takes cognizance on police report he can not direct further investigation. Again, Magistrate is not debarred from taking cognizance of a case on police report in a case in which he declined earlier to take cognizance on public report.

 Remand :

It means re-committal to custody, where a person can not be detained in custody beyond a prescribed time.

 Charge:

The term is not properly and fully defined in the Code. Section 2(b) Criminal Procedure Code says, “Charge includes any head of charges when the charge contains more heads than one”. But this is hardly any definition. However, ‘charge’ can be said to mean a formulation of the specific accusations against a person sought to be tried.

 Judicial Proceedings :

This is expression includes any proceeding in the course which evidence is or may be legally taken on oath. Thus, inquiry and trial proceedings are judicial proceedings but proceedings during investigation are not judicial proceedings.

First Information Report

Introduction:
 Constitutional responsibility of the State, Administration of Criminal Justice through
Police and Judiciary.Criminal law occupies a predominant place among the agencies of social control and is regarded as aformidable weapon that society has forged to protect it self against anti-social behavior. Criminal Procedure is an inseparable part of the panel law and the effectiveness of the latter depends much upon the proper implementation of the former.The criminal law has been described as one of the most faithful mirrors of the modern society reflecting the fundamental values on which the later rests.

Broadly speaking, the investigation of an offence consists of: –
1.  Proceeding to the place of             offence.
2. Ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Discovery and arrest of the suspected offender.
4. Collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence which may consist of: –
(a) Examination of various persons (including the accused) and the reducing of their statements into writing if the Police officer making the investigation thinks fit.
(b) Search of places or seizure of things considered necessary for the investigation or trial.
5. Formation of the opinion as to whether on the materials collected there is a case to place the accused before a magistrate for trial, and if so taking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of chargesheet (challan) u/s 173 Cr.P.C (Supreme Court in H.N. Rishbud V. State of Delhi 1955, Cr. L.J 526 AIR 1955 SC          196).The Principal agency for carrying out investigation of offence is the Police, and the Police can proceed to          investigate:
(a) On the information received from any person as to the commission of any cognizable offence.
(b) Even without any such information, but if they have reason to suspect the commission of any cognizable             offence.
(c) On receiving any order (to investigate) from any judicial magistrate empowered to ta

Legal position of FIR:

The first report commonly known as the First Information Report has not been defined in the Code. ke cognizance of any offence under section 190 Cr.P.C.

DEFINITION:
FIR has not been defined in the Cr.P.C. In fact is the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence that reaches the officer –in –charge of the Police Station first in point of time.
F.I.R. is a very valuable document. It is of utmost legal importance , both form the point of view of the prosecution and the defence. F.I.R. constitutes the “foundation “ of the case in the first instance and whole of the case is built on it . If the foundation is week , then the prosecution case will tumble down . If on the other hand , is strong if will endure the attacks of the accused and his counsel.On receipt of such information the S.H.O. of the Police Station is legally required to draw up a regular F.I.R. in from prescribed by the State Government vide Sec. 154 Cr.P.C. When any information disclosing a cognizable
offence is laid before the officer–in – charge of Police Station , he has no option but to register the case on the basis thereof ( State of Haryana Vs Ch. Bhajan Lal AIR1992 SC 604, 1992 Cr.LJ 527).

No body likes to go to Police Station for registering their FIR’s just because of the way these people behave. Now don’t you again think that I am cribbing. I am not cribbing there is always a chance of improvement.  Many times people don’t go to Police Stations to register an FIR because they are scared. They are scared of being a victim again. These Policemen ask thousands of questions that you don’t even want to go to that place again and the way they talk. I think you know it better. Just go back to the point where you had to stand outside the room in a Police Station while the Hawaldaar (Constable) who is suppose to log the FIR was busy eating or talking. And it hurts more when you know that you are there report just a small purse or your education documents.

What about the ladies, no girl would even thinks about going to Police Station alone. Why ? Are they not safe in Police Stations. Why are people scared of the Police in Bangladesh. Just because they can do anything and everything which is not ethical makes them do anything.

 (a) Information in cognizable cases:

• 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 information; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be singed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to kept by such officer in such form as the Government may prescribe in this behalf.
• A Copy of the information as recorded shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to t he informant.
• Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer-in-charge of a police station to record the information refereed to 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, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer-in-charge of the police station in relation to that offence.

(b) Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases :

1. When information is given to an officer-in-charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the information to the Magistrate.
2. 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.
3. Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer-in-charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable cases.
4. 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.

LOOKING AT F.I.R’s IN DIFFERENT OFFENCES

F.I.R In conspiracy cases:

In conspiracy cases, a definite information which justifies registration of case, is fairely after making some enquiries. So it is not on every information that some persons are conspiring to do an illegal act that an F.I.R. should be registered. “A police man passes through three stages in conspiracy case; hears something of interest affecting the public security and which puts him on the alert; makes discreet enquiries, takes soundings and sets up informations and is in the second stage of enquiry or look out and finally gathers sufficient information enabling him to hit upon something definite and that is the state when first information is recorded and then investigation starts. Hence a preliminary enquiry made by the C.I.D. Police into relative information floating about as to the existence of the conspiracy, the names and other details of the conspirators not being known at the time is not investigation carried out u/s 156 Cr.P.C.

F.I.R. need only be registered when information is definite about conspirators and their acts disclosing commission of cognizable offence.

F.I.R. In Corruption cases :

In cases of corruption, not registered on traps laid, but on complaints, always a suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegation, is required. Such preliminary enquiries are relevant before the registration of case and are permissible under law. But as soon as it became clear to enquiring officer that the public servant appeared to be guilty of severe misconduct, it was his duty to lodge F.I.R. and proceed further in the investigation.

F.I.R In murder cases :

In murder cases, following types of F.I.R.’s are recorded by police.
i) When it contains direct evidence of murder on the basis of ocular evidence.

1. ii) When the Police registers the case minimizing the offence from murder to 307 or u/s 364 PC to avoid its despatch to magistrate which otherwise is essential if case is really registered for murder. This is invariably in those cases in which the informer is not sure of the culprits and priliminary enquiry is required by Police to find out the facts and to show that the case was registered properly.

iii) When a dead body identified or unidentified is recovered, with cause of death which is clear and the injuries are apparent the neck is cut etc.

1. iv) When only inquest is held to discover the cause of death and the case is registered after the report of Medical Officer, or after the receipt of report of chemical examiner etc with re- gard to poison given to the deceased. Only a report is recorded in Daily Diary at the first instance.

(v) When the death is under suspicious circumstances and inves- tigation is necessary which otherwise cannot be done without the registration of case. This is mainly in cases where dead body is not available, but the circumstances indicate that cognizable offence has occurred.

FORMAT OF THE F.I.R. IS AS UNDER

First Information Report
First Information of a Cognizable Crime Reported under Section 154, Cr.P.C

Police Station :………………

District :……………………

No :……………….Date and hour of Occurrence :…………………

1. Date and hour when reported
2. Name and residence of informer and complainant.
3. Brief description of offence (with section) and of property carried off, if any.
4. Place of occurrence and distance and direction from the Police Station.
5. Name & Address of the Criminal.
6. Steps taken regarding investigation explanation of delay in regarding information.
7. Date and Time of dispatch from Police Station.

Signature:……………………………..
Designation:…………………………..
(First information to be recorded below)

NOTE: – The signature of seal or thumb impression of the informer should be at the end of the information and the signature of the Writer of (FIR) should be existed as usual.
Sec.154 Cr.P.C.

(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer 1/c of a Police Station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informer, 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 statement Government may prescribe in this behalf.(Daily diary register)

(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub.Sec.(1)shall be given forthwith, free of cost to the informer.

(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of officer-in-charge of a Police Station to record the information referred to in sub.Sec(1),may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post to S.P or DCsP 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, in the manner provided by this code and such officer shall have all the powers of an I/C of the Police Station in relation to that offence. If the information is given orally, it should be recorded in plain and simple language as early as possible in the informer’s own words. Technical or legal expression, high-flown language or lengthy or involved sentences should not be used. No oath should be administered to the complainant, but the statement should be read over to him and he should sign it or affix his thumb impression to it. The report should show that this has been done.If it is received in writing, it should be signed by the complainant.
The substance of the report be entered in Daily Diary Register also.A copy of the F.I.R. as recorded shall be given forth-with to the complainant free of cost. The provision of Standing Order No. 140 and instructions in this regard is attached hereto as Annexure-I & II.The most uncommon practice of sending away a complainant who wishes to make an oral report to go and bring a written one should be strongly discouraged. The SHO must be made to fulfill his responsibility in this regard.Each F.I.R.

Dratting of FIR And General Diary (G.D.)

Format of FIR

To

The Office-In-Charge

Gafargaon Police Station

Mymensingh.

 

Subject : Entry of a Ejahar.

 

Dear Sir,

I beg most respectfully to state that I am the under signed Abul Kalam, S/0 Abu Salam, Village‑ Gouri Hat, Police Station ‑ Gafargaon, District ‑Mymensingh. I am a business man of seasonal goods, To day I was returning from weekly hat of Fulessor with my son 9 Abu Salam by selling 10 mouns of jute. At 9 p.m. when we were at Chaluni Ghat in the 4 light of Moon we saw some persons on the road ahead to us. When we came nearer to them I.Hanif son of Alif, Dabir son of Khabir of Chaluni Gaht along with 7/8 miscreants forcibly stopped us and showed two big glassing swords and wanted what we had with us. We disagreed to deliver any thing to them. Then Hanif handed over one sword to Dabir and Dabir hit with that sword to my son’s right hand and forcibly took my hand bag from me. I had 12,000/‑ Taka (Twelve Thousand Taka) with in the hand bag that I got from selling jute in the hat. Hanif and Dabir threatened us not to inform it to the police or others. They also threatened us if we would do anything against their command ourlife will be ended for ever. Then hearing our shouts and cry some villagers named Suban, Kurban and others came and rescued us and took my son to the nearest hospital. My son has been admitted in the Gafargaon Thana Shasto Complex and now he is under treatment. I am late for few hours to lodge the petition because of transferring my son to hospital.

I, therefore, pray and hope that you would be kind enough to arrest and present the above miscreants before the court of law for trial and punishments.

I remain Sir

Dated ‑ Gafargaon Abul Kalarn

S/O Abu Salam, Village‑ Gouri Hat,

Police Station ‑Gafargaon, District‑Mymensingh.

 

 

 

 

Format of a G.D.

 

To

The Officer ‑ In ‑ Charge

Dhanmondi Police Station/Thana

Dhaka Metropolitan Police (DMP)

Dhaka‑1209.

 

Subject :  Entry of General Diary

Dear Sir,

I beg most respectfully to state that I am the under signed Abul Fazal S/0 Abul Mahal Present Address: House # 15/2, Road # 6A , Dhanmondi Dhaka ‑ 1209, Pennanent Address: VillageKorail, P.S‑Nalita Bari, District‑ Sherpur. I am a businessman and I deal with Computer and others electronics instruments having the title of the show room of “Modem Computer” on the above address. To day at 5.00 p.m. I got a phone through my Mobile from an unknown number such as OIXXXXXXXXX A male from other side introduced himself as Kala Rafiq and he demanded to me Taka 50,0001= (Taka Fifty Thousand only) He ordered to deliver those money on tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. to his sending fellow Benga Kalu from my show room. He also threatened me in case of failure of his demand or if I take help from police, my life would be in risk. In this situation I am in great danger and helpless.

1, therefore, pray and hope that you would be kind enough to provide me proper security for my life and business and to take proper step for this threat.

 

I remain Sir,

(Abul Fazal)

S/o Abul Mahal

Present Address: House #15/2; Road # 6A, Dhanmondi, Dhaka‑ 1209, Permanent Address: Village‑Korail, P.S‑Nalita Bari, District‑ Sherpur.

OBJECT AND IMPORTANCE

The F.I.R is the most important piece of corroborative evidence on which the entire structure of a prosecution case is built up. It is in the nature of a foundation of building. The whole object of F.I.R. is to obtain early information of alleged criminal activity, to record the circumstances before there is time for them to be forgotten or embellished. It is valuable document which throws much light on the state of affairs which were known at the time of its making at least to the persons making it. Consequently, if the trial a story is given which differs in material particulars from the one given in the first report, it has always been traded with great suspicion. It importance lies in the fact that it is a statement which is made soon after the occurrence when memory is fresh and there is want of opportunity for successful fabrication. The implication is that when once the prosecution case is put in the F.I.R opportunities for improving it are considerably reduced because any prosecution case that may be subsequently up can be checked in the light of the first report particularly when it is made by the complainant himself. It also shows on what materials the investigation commenced and what was the story then told. But in attaching the importance to the F.I.R, fictitious importance should not be attached to it because it is not be-all and end all of every criminal case and is not a substantive evidence and after all can be used only for limited purposes like corroborating and contradicting the market there of or to show that the implication of the accused was not an afterthought or as one of the resgestae or for being tendered in a proper case under Section 32(1) Evidence Act, or as part of the information’s conduct under Section 3 of the Evidence Act.

F.I.R is the first version of the alleged criminal activity conveyed to the police officer with the  object of putting the police in motion. It is an important and valuable document but not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used for corroborating or contradicting it’s maker. It need not be made by an eye-witness or that it must give full and precise details. The F.I.R can be used to corroborate or discredit the informant only and no other witness. Incomplete F.I.R is to be ignored.

ESSENTIAL OF F.I.R

From a perusal, it is apparent that in order to constitute a proper F.I.R two ingredients are necessary: (1) it must relate to commission of a cognizable offence, and (2) the information should be given to an officer-in-charge of a police station. Statement given to the police in connection with the commission of cognizable offence fall under two stages: Those given before the commencement of investigation and those during the investigation. The question whether a statement made to the police is or is not a first information report or has not been recorded in the manner prescribed, Criminal procedure Code, is not of primary importance; what is of importance is whether such statements were made prior to the commencement of investigation. If so, they can be proved for purposes of corroboration or contradiction but not for any other purpose.

Information given first in point of time is F.I.R. F.I.R first recorded on plain paper and then transcribed into register is not improper. Telephonic message can be treated as F.I.R, signing the same being only a formality. Cryptic and anonymous telephone message not specifying cognizable offence is not and F.I.R is to be ignored. F.I.R is not a complaint and cannot under Section 190 Cr. P.C.

There are some points which should be kept in mind while recording the FIR. It is imperative for both the Officer in charge and the informant (the one who wishes to file the FIR) to keep in mind some basic issues when it comes to recording or reporting the matter:-

Shall be reduced in writing:

The conditions as to writing are merely procedural. The first information must be recorded at once, and it is not proper to wait- unit it is certain that an offence has been committed.

Shall be signed:

The provision regarding the signing of the FIR is to guarantee its correctness. The statement must show that the statement after it was written- read over to the information and then he signed. A refusal to sign such statement is punishable under S. 180 PC the failure to sign to FIR affects its credit even though it will be admissible in evidence. When however the information supports the contents of his FIR at the time of his evidence, it will not cease to be a valuable piece of evidence for his failure to sign it.

Station or General Diary :

The substance of the information shall be entered in a book which is called the station or general diary, in which the substance of information are recorded, the names of the complainant and of persons arrested, offence changed, property taken into possession and witness examined under S. 44 of the Police Act (V of 1861). This diary is different form the special diary or case diary mentioned in S. 172.

1. The capacity in which the report is being filed :

It is to be specified that the informant is filing the report in what capacity.Whether the informant is himself a victim; or He is an eye-witness and saw the offence being committed.Or whether he heard about the incident from someone else.(Information about a cognizable offence can be given by anyone who has knowledge of commission of such offence not necessarily being the eye witness.)

2. Who did it?

If a known person has committed the crime then his name, address and other particulars must be mentioned. If not then descriptive particulars of the offender must be penned down like the clothes he was wearing, any special identifiable mark etc.

3. The time of commission :

The time when the crime was committed must also be noted down. If delay occurred in lodging FIR then the reason accounting for such delay must also be recorded.

4. The place of commission :

The area/place where the offence was committed is a must for FIR. This helps in ascertaining the jurisdiction of the police station.

5. Against whom the crime was committed :

The informant should mention the victim of the crime. Since the informant may not necessarily be the victim, this information becomes crucial.

6. How did the offence take place?

A detailed description of the act committed by the offender must be recorded accurately so that it helps in further investigation. Also if any  arms/weapons/vehicles were used then their description is also called for.The description of injury received (if any) by property and/or victim also form an essential part of FIR.

7. Things taken away by the accused:

If the accused has taken anything which doesn’t belong to him/her (as in case of theft etc.) then the complete description of property and identifiable particulars must be put down.

8. The details about Witness:

If the offence took place in presence of witness(s) then their name and address must be taken down. Also if the witness attempted to rescue the victim then every single act must be described.

9. Reason behind the commission:

If the motive behind the offence is known to the informant then it may be mentioned in the FIR.

10. Traces left behind by the offender:

If there is any object left behind by the offender then it must be recorded in the FIR. The object could be something like a slipper or a handkerchief etc.

COMPARISON CHART OF what an F.I.R. IS AND what IS NOT an FIR :

F.I.R. is	F.I.R is NOT
1.Information relating to cognizable crime.	1. Rumour, gossip or hearsay.
2. Given to the officer-in-charge of Police Station.	2. Telegram.
3. First in Time.	3. Telephonic message.
4. Written or oral.	4. Information not given to officer-in-charge of police station.
	5. Anonymous communication

From the above, the following ingredients can be made out:-

1) It must be information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence.

2) It must be given to an officer-in-charge of a police station.

3) It must be reduced to writing, if given orally.

4) It should be appended by the signature of the informer (Refusal to sign the report is punishable u/s 180 IPC).

5) It should be read over to the informer.

6) The gist of the information should be entered in the Station General Diary.

7) A copy should be given forthwith free of cost to the informer.

Informer must be produced in the court to prove and corroboration of it.

DO’S AND DON”TS

DO’S :-

1. FIR should be lodged immediately.
2. It should be recorded in first person.
3. Attitude/Behavious towards the vicitirn should be sympathetic.
4. Technical words should be avoided and as far as possible language of the inforrner/complainant should be used .
5. Written complaint should be taken.
6. But complainant should be at descrect to give written statement.
7. Written statement should be duly signed or thumb impressioned.
8. Only a report of congnizable offence should be lodged in FIR.
9. Authentic information should be mentioned in FIR.
10. Place, Date & Time of occurrence should be mentioned in the FIR.
11. Arrival & Departure of the informer should be mentioned in the FIR as well as Daily Dairy Register.
12. Delay, if any, in registering the case should be covered in FIR.
13. 1 1 “Ws’ should be strictly followed.
14. Description & Role of every accused involved in the Commission of offence should be covered in FIR.
15. Kind of physical damage & property destroyed should be mentioned in the FIR. 1
16. 16 Weapon of offence and observation of Scene of crime should be mentioned in the FIR.
17. Telephone number, if any, of the complainant should also be mentioned.
18. Four copies of FIR should be prepared simultaniously by carbon paper process.
19. FIR should be lodged in neat & clean hand writing and be kept in safe custody being a permanent record.
20. A copy of FIR should be sent to MM concerned immediately.
21. A copy of FIR should be provided to the complainant free of cost.

DO NOT’S:-

1. Complainant. should not be puzzled.
2. Harsh language should not be used.
3. Aggression should be avoided.
4. Unnecessary details should be avoided.
5. Over-writing/ scoring should be avoided.
6. Offence should not be minimized.
7. Do not forget to take thimb impression or signature of the informer.
8. FIR should not be lodged on the basis of telephone telegram or hearsay rumour without verifying the facts and getting the signature of the informer/ complainant.

CONTENTS OF F.I.R.

            Law does not prescribe the contents of a F.I.R. not its essential ingredients. In a case reported in 1957 Cr. Cj. at page 296  Para 8: AIR 1957 SC 142, the earliest information of the crime did not contain any detail of the incident. It was merely confined to the statement that a dacoity was being committed at the house of A in village B and the information had rushed from there for making a report. Their Lordships accepted the report as proper F.I.R. in order to constitute F.I.R. only two conditions are to be fulfilled: firstly, what is conveyed must be an information, and secondly, that information should relate to the commission of a cognizable offence on the face of it.   It is not incumbent on the informant to state facts showing that the court has jurisdiction to try the offence. In Code there is not provision analogous to Order XIV, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code. The haphazard way in which sometimes reports are written or dispatched indicates rustic simplicity rather than clever and well-planned deceit. The haphazard way in which sometimes reports are written or dispatched indicates rustic simplicity rather than clever and well-planned deceit. The absence of name of accused persons in F.I.R. is, therefore, of no consequence. A court has only to see whether the document is a spontaneous expression of the narration of event or it is the outcome of concoction and tutoring. When a report of murder is made to a Police Patel, the latter is not bound to ask the names of assailants, unless they are given by the informant. But these decisions will have no application to those cases where the information gives an entire picture of the occurrence, giving names of accused persons and witnesses and weapons used in the incident. In such cases absence of name of any accused or witness or weapon will have an important bearing on the truthfulness of prosecution story. In this connection it is important to bear in mind the distinction between an-eye witness information and an informant whose information is based on hearsay because, in the latter case it is reasonable to expect that some details might escape his memory. Minor discrepancies the between the statement of the case as given in the F.I.R. and the evidence of eye-witnesses are immaterial and of no consequence when the F.I.R. was made by  a person not a eye-witness of the affair, and he based his information upon third-hand information and the report itself did not profess to mention all the culprits, the omission of the names of some of the miscreants cannot be regarded as an adequate ground for distrusting an eye-witness’s testimony to the contrary.

DETAILS IN F.I.R.

It is very natural that a complainant who gives information immediately after the occurrence has not correct notion as to which facts are more important than the other and as such which should incorporated in the F.I.R. When the prosecution counsel while examining the informant elicits greater details and those details are not inconsistent with the initial report, nothing can be urged against those details.

In a case reported in 1957 CrlJ.294: AIR 1957 SC 142, the F.I.R did not contain any details of the incident and was confined to the statement that a dacoity was being committed at a particular house. The case ended in conviction the basis of evidence produced before court. Where a F.I.R. is not as full as it could be, it cannot be thrown out of consideration completely. In a case of dacoity, if the F.I.R F.I.R. does not disclose the part played by each dacoit, it does not underrate the value of such a document. First information Report is not document in which each and every relevant fact connected with the prosecution should mention. As its name implies, it is only the first information given to the police with regard to the commission of a crime. That being so, motive is not a necessary ingredient of a F.I.R In a case of dacoity, F.I.R. In a case of dacoity, F.I.R is not of great value on account of the victim’s inability to identify the offenders.

There is nothing in law to indicate that a First Information Report must give every detail or any detail. It should be sufficient to induce the police to leave the police station and investigate the affair. This is one extreme view on the subject of giving details in the F.I.R from the trend of judicial pronouncements it appears that courts have not, rightly, attempted to lay down any hard any fast rule on the subject. There had been cases and cases where a simple report about the commission of an offence has been held to be sufficient. On the contrary judicial pronouncements are not wanting where the non-mention of a particular detail in the F.I.R. has been considered fatal to the prosecution case. The question in each case which calls for consideration is : whether a particular detail is of such a nature that if it where true it would not have escaped incorporation in the document, looking to the mental alertness of the informant. Where a F.I.R. is the product of the brain of an illiterate and inexperienced person, there is a legitimate excuse of confusion and forgetfulness or incapacity to distinguish between material and immaterial facts; but when the same document is prepared by an experienced police officer who has personal knowledge of the facts and who has to take up investigation on the basis of it, the prosecution cannot take shelter behind the plea of confusion or forgetfulness or lack of intelligence.

An omission in a report hurriedly lodged under the press of events should not have the same significance as one in a report lodged after cool calculation. And in every case there should be nothing than the mere existence of a contradiction in regard to detail unless it be a contradiction which, on a firm and reasonable interpretation of it, points to a falsity of that detail or at least to the raising of a doubt as to its correctness. In a case of dacoity the non-mention of the source of light in the F.I.R. is not fatal to the case because a crime like that by its very nature cannot be committed in pitch darkness because the criminals who are usually strangers have to find their way about to discover the property in the house and have to take precautions to guard against counter-attacks by the villagers. The existence of light in the prevailing conditions of the country is a normal feature in village.

LODGING AN F.I.R

So many times we here that police refuse to accept an FIR unless pressurized by media or some social or official or political authority. On one hand the person is already suffering on the other hand police harasses him by not accepting the FIR.

While not much may be done by the police even if the FIR is lodged, but its lodging becomes a must for a person in cases of theft, harassment and in case any other crime is committed against him.

Not only police officials are reluctant to accept the FIR, they positively discourage the person/persons from lodging the FIR.

The question is why no departmental action is taken against the police officials who refuse to accept the FIR in first place?

 The general opinion is that the system needs to be changed.

1. Action must be taken against the police official who refuses to accept the FIR.
2. Lodging of FIR should be allowed through internet where in acknowlegement shall be generated immediately as in case of payment of taxes on net. System has to be designed in such a way that It should not be possible to edit the FIR content by any body once FIR is lodged, nor should it be possible to change the date and time of submission of FIR. Also the system should forward it immediately to the concerened police official for necessary action.

No person has the right to take the life of another or cause injury. A free society’s existence will naturally be in peril if individual members are allowed to disrupt its functioning without restraint of any kind and take the law into their own hands. Every civilised society has adopted both substantive and procedural laws to prevent or punish those who wish to harm others.In our legal system, the criminal offences have been defined in different sections of the Penal Code (PC) with punishment for each offence. Similarly, the procedure to be followed by the police and law courts for applying criminal laws is also clearly specified in the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.c.)

Lodging First Information Report (FIR) is a citizen’s fundamental right against any criminal offence. In fact, it is the first requirement of law to be completed for initiating criminal proceedings against any criminal offender. The police is duty bound to register the complaint of an aggrieved person. Even on the telephone an FIR can be recorded. The accused as well as the informant are entitled to a copy of the FIR. The first information of the commission of a cognizable offence is enough to constitute an FIR. Mention of the time of commission of offence or who committed it, is not essential.

WHO CAN LODGE F.I.R:
(1) Complainant who is an aggrieved person or some body on his behalf.
(2) By any person who is aware of the offence (a) as an eye witness and (b) as an hearsay account.
(3) Provided the person in possession of the hearsay is required to subscribe his signature to it and mention the source of his information so that it does not amount to irresponsible rumour. The rule of law is, if general law is broken any person has a right to complain whether he has suffered an injury or not.
(a) By the accused himself.
(b) By SHO on his own knowledge or information even when a cognizable offence is committed in view of a officer incharge he can register a case himself and is not bound to take down in writing any information. Under the order of Magistrate u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. when a complaint is forwarded to officer incharge without taking cognizance (Kanak Singh Vs. Balabhadra Singh,1988 Cr. LJ 579 (Gujarat). If information is only hear say, then SHO should register case only if person in possession of hear say subscribes his signature to it and mentions the source of his information so that it does not amount to irresponsible rumor. The information must be definite,not vague, authentic, not baseless, gossip or rumour, clearly making out a cognizable case.
(4) The information is only by a medical certificate or doctor’s ruqqa about arrival of injured, then he
(S.H.O.) should enter it in daily diary and go to hospital for recording detailed statement of injured.

WHO CAN WRITE F.I.R…?
(1) A FIR is always to be written by an officer incharge of a Police Station.
(Definition of officer in charge is given in sec. 2 Cr.P.C.)
(2) According to sec. 36 Cr.P.C.” Police officers superior in rank to officer in charge of a Police Station may exercise the same powers through the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by SHO with in the limit of his Police Station.
(3) Some times it so happens that’s the information is given by the informer to a Police officer who is out un the illegal of a local Police Post. Strictly speaking the officers are not officers in chare of a Police Station and such information lodged with them are not reported under section 154 Cr.P.C. These officers record the statement of the informers F.I.Rs. These officers record the statement of the informers and send the same on
to the SHO of a Police Station for recording F.I.Rs These statements are however admissible U/S 157 Evidence Act.
(4) Jurisdiction is an essential factor in registering a F.I.R. The provisions regarding jurisdiction contained in section 177 to 184 Criminal Procedure Code and 462 C.R.P.C are guiding factor. The latest Supreme Court ruling reported in the Indian express dated 9.10.199 is attached as Annexure-111.Section 156 Cr.P.C.U/Sec.156, Cr.P.C 1973 an officer incharge of Police Station is empowered to investigate any cognizable offences which occurs within his jurisdiction and under section 157 Cr.P.C. he is also empowered to depute a subordinate officer not being below such rank as the state Govt. may by general or special orders prescribed in this behalf to proceed to the spot, to investigate the factors and circumstances of cases and, if necessary, to take measures fro the discovery and arrest of the offender. The instruction issued from Police Headquarters and photocopy of the news clipping of Indian Express dated 9/10/99 regarding jurisdiction of F.I.R “on territorial bar on lodging FIR” is attached with Annexure-111.

How is an FIR lodged?

All police stations follow a standard format for recording an FIR. To lodge an FIR, a complaint can be given orally or in writing. If the complaint is given orally the police officer will write it down in the prescribed format and receive signature of the complainant after reading it out to him/her. If the complaint is given in writing it will be attached to the FIR itself.

Who registers the FIR?

FIR in a cognizable offence has to be registered by a Sub-Inspector and in his absence by the senior most official in the police station. The sub-inspector has to investigate the complaint himself or record the reasons why he deputed someone else. In every police station it is the writer, who is of the rank of a sub-inspector who records an FIR.

F.I.R. ON TELEPHONE :
Legally a case should not be registered (a) as there is always a doubt about its authenticity (b) as it does not satisfy the test of Sec. 154 Cr. P.C. being not an oral statement reduced into writing: read over, admitted correct and signed by the informer. Message to the Police on telephone that an injured person was lying amount to FIR (Sukharam Vs. State of Maharashtra (1969) 3 SCC, 730.

F.I.R. ONTELEGRAM :
On receipt of telegram in railways case may be registered. Normally enquiry should be made and on receipt of an original telegram, which contains the thumb, impression of signatures case may be registered. Officer in charge should begin to write FIR in the ‘First Information Report Register at the dictation of the informer. According to Para 24.5 P.P.R., the register shall; be printed book consisting of 200 pages and shall be completely filled in before a new one Is stared. Cases shall bear annual serial; number in such Police Station for each calendar year. Every four pages of the register shall be numbered with the same number and shall be written at the same time by carbon copying process. The original copy shall be a permanent record of Police Station. The other three copies shall
be submitted to (a) S.P./DCP or other Gazette Officer nominated by him (b) to the Metropolitan Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence as is required by Sec. 157 Cr.P.C. (c) one to; the complainant. The seal lo the Police Station shall; be put on every copy and original. If an informer refuses to sign the R.I.R. he is guilty of offence u/s 180 I.P.C. which is as follows:-“Whoever refuse to sign on any statement made by him, when required to sign that statement by a public servant, legally competent to require that he shall sign that statement, shall be jppu8nished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, of with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both” If the Police Officers refuse to enter the FIR and instead enter in D.D. Register a totally differently and false report, he is guilty u/s 177/167/218 IPC which are as follows:

Sec. 177 PC: “Furnishing false information”
“Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows of has reason to believe to be false, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both”. Or, if the information which he is legally bound to give respects the commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to the apprehension orphan offender, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, of with fine, of with both”

Sec. 167 PC: Public servant disobeying law, With intent to cause injury to any person,
“Whoever, being a public servant, and being, as such public servant, charged with the preparation of translation of any document , frames of translates that document in a manner which he knows or believes to be incorrect, in-tending thereby to cause of knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause injury to any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a ter4m which may extend to ;three years, ;of with fine, of with both”.

Sec. 182 PC”“False information with intent to cause public servant to
use his power to ;the injury of another person, “Whoever gives to; any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, of knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant-
(a) To do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or
(b) To use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any Person.Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Sec.211 PC: False charge of offence made with intent to injure “Whoever, with intent cause injury to any person, Institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both”. And if such criminals proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven year sor up wards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;

Sec. 217 PC: Public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save Person from punishment property from forfeiture,“ Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save any person from legal punishment, or subject him to a less punishment than that to which he is liable, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or any charge to which it is liable by law. Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, with fine, or with both”.

What if the police refuse to register the FIR?

Under the law, many remedies are available to the people in case the police refuses to register an FIR. The informant can approach the Superintendent of Police of the area concerned and seek his intervention in the matter. The information may either be recorded by the Superintendent of police himself or he may send the informant to the police station again for the registration of FIR. In case, the approached senior police officer does not listen to the aggrieved person or help him in g etting the FIR registered, he can approach the concerned Magistrate and file a complaint before him who is fully empowered to take cognizance of a cognizable offence. If the magistrate is not satisfied and dismisses the complaint without assigning proper reasons, the aggrieved person can approach the High Court and later the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, if need be, for getting the needful done.

What are the duties of a police official with regard to recording of FIRs?

It needs to be emphasized that a police officer is duty bound to register an FIR if a crime has been committed. Further there should be no time lag between receipt of information about a crime and the recording of it. The Karnataka Police Manual clearly says the police official should not wait until he has checked the authenticity of the complaint, nor should he wait for the medical report. Don’t even embark on a preliminary enquiry, record an FIR at once, it instructs. The police official has to record all important facts in the FIR. He is also instructed to record the FIR in the actual words of the informant to avoid interpretation. Once an FIR is recorded the official has to read and explain it to the complainant and take his sign. An FIR once recorded cannot be withheld or cancelled by the Station House Officer (SHO) under any circumstances.

What are the rights of a complainant with regard to an FIR?

Once the FIR is registered the complainant has a right to receive a copy free of cost then and there. No confession or complaint made before the police can be used in a court of law. This is done to prevent misuse of their office. The complainant can change his/her saying given in the FIR but has to explain the reasons for doing so in court. Another injunction is that there cannot be more than one FIR in one case no matter how many crimes have been committed. This means there can only be one version of the offence.

What happens after an FIR is recorded?

Immediately after recording the police officer investigates the incident forthwith. He goes to the place of inquiry without delay and collects evidence from the scene which could be material or  photos and statement of the witnesses. The investigating officer has to give a report to the magistrate on the FIR within 60 days (if the prescribed punishment for the offence committed under law is less than 7 years) or within 90 days (if the punishment is more than 7 years). Once an FIR is lodged, four copies are made. While the original is dispatched immediately to the magistrate having jurisdiction, one copy is retained by the police station and one copy is sent to the Superintendent of Police and another to the immediate superior officer, usually the Circle Inspector.

Why is the FIR an important document in a criminal case?

The FIR is admissible as evidence in court which is why it is a very important document. The Karnataka Police manual says “It is the earliest record made of the alleged offence before there is time for its particulars to be embellished or forgotten. It can be used to corroborate or impeach the testimony of the person lodging it under the Indian Evidence Act. The necessity of drawing up this document with the utmost care and accuracy and with all available details cannot therefore be over emphasised”.

In practice, why is registering an FIR the most difficult thing to do?

“If you want to register an FIR for a petty theft the police discourages you, they openly tell you that object won’t be recovered” says Aarthi, a student who tried unsuccessfully to file a complaint after her mobile was stolen. Rajlakshmi, a practicing lawyer, explains the way in which the police accept bribes for registering FIR. She says, “There are different rates for registering FIR’s, for a petty offence you may be charged tk.500, if your vehicle has been involved in a accident the charge maybe tk.2000 and if you want to show extensive damages tk.4000. In dowry harassment cases the rates go up to tk.10,000”.

Singh admits that there is reluctance on the part of the police to register FIR’s. “Every SHO wants to give the impression to his superiors that his station is ram rajya”, he says. “If they register all cases the crime rate will be seen as skyrocketing. The SHO does not want to be pulled up by his superiors for being inefficient”.

WHAT IF A POLICEMAN RECORDS YOUR F.I.R. WRONGLY ?

Sec. 167 PC: Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person.

Whoever, being a public servant, and being, as such public servant, charged with the preparation or translation of any document, frames or translates that document in a manner which he knows or believes to be incorrect, in- tending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause injury to any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both’.

Sec.218 PC:- Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture.

Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or withfine, or with both. If the informer gives false report,. he is liable to be prosecuted u/s 182 or 211 PC which are as follows:

Sec. 166 PC: Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person.

“Whoever, bring a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Sec. 217 PC: Public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture.

“Whoever , being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or subject him to a less punishment than that to which he is liable, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or any charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Non-registration of FIR blocks right to justice :

The recording of a First Information Report (FIR) of a cognizable offence is the most important legal duty of the police station-officers. First Information is the information of the commission of a cognizable crime that shall first reach the police, whether oral or written. FIR is the basis of a cognizable case which activates the police officers to actions like visiting the places of occurrence, collecting evidences, arresting the perpetrators, conducting raids and searches, etc. It also binds the police officers to the duty of protecting the victims and the complainants.

But it is a common allegation of the people against the police that they very often refuse to lodge the FIR. Thana-police are highly choosy, selective and partial to lodge the FIR. They choose to satisfy the influential and moneyed citizens while deliberately ignore the powerless poor masses. The power and responsibility of recording cognizable offences is, also, the most notorious source of police corruption. The rich and influential persons can easily manage the police officers to register an FIR, true or false, by influencing or bribing, while the poor people are being deprived of their legal rights. But it is mandatory for the police to lodge the FIR of cognizable cases. They must not refuse or delay to register the case. The law in this concern is crystal clear. “It may be given by a person acquainted with the fact directly or on hearsay, but in either case it constitutes the first information required by law, upon which the enquiry under section 157, Code of criminal Procedure, shall be taken up. The criminal justice system is designed in such a way that no criminal offence remains out of the police knowledge and no criminal remain unanswered for their commission of crimes. So any citizen, not necessarily becoming an eye-witness, but having a little knowledge of the commissioning of a crime, can inform the police. Even the hearsay must not be ignored.
When hearsay information of a crime is given, the station officer neither shall nor wait to record, as the first information, the statement of the actual complainant or an eye-witness. The police are bound to lodge the FIR even if the information of the commissioning of an offence comes from the telegram, telephone of e-mail. However, in this case the police officers have enough scope of applying their good sense of self judgment. Sometimes the police refuse to lodge FIR on the pea that the information of the informant is not believable, or there is not much truth in it. Sometimes the shrewd police officers may ask the complainant for a report from the doctor (in the case of assault or hurt) before lodging the FIR. But the rule does not permit the police officers to delay at lodging the FIR at any such circumstances. Though the law is exceptionally strict with respect to lodging the FIR, it has given much discretionary power to the officer in charge of a police station in investigating the registered cases. The officer in charge can refuse the investigation of the cases he registered. However, he must record the reasons for not conducting an investigation and must inform the complainant formally. Corruption in the police service is one of the principle cause of the non-registering of an FIR. The rich people having sufficient money to bribe the police officers can easily prevent the opponent victims from lodging the complaint. Sometimes, the criminals may be politically influential persons or groups. So, the police officers may not be willing to register criminal cases against that persons or groups. Some recent reports on the Dhaka Metropolitan Police (DMP) have raveled mind boggling truth of non-registering of complainants. During the period of the last non-party caretaker government no political and external influence was heeded to. The officers- in- charge were ordered to register complaints as the law directs. The result was astonishing. “More and more people are now arriving at the police stations and registering individual complaints and cases, so much so that till 15 March, a staggering 1395 cases were recorded as against an average of 200 per month.” The registration of cases had evidentially been done less or more as per the legal directions across the country thought the year. The crime statistics of the whole country shows that the total number of registered crime increased at 1,57,200 in 2007 from 1,30,578 in 2006- an increase by nearly 20%.

One of the perennial causes of non-registering of complaints is the erroneous system of evaluation of police performance. Monthly and annual police performance is judged by the available crime statistics. If a police unit can keep the number of crime rate low in black and white, it is marked better than the other police units. The total number of registered crimes is also a point of discussion to the political executives. They keep the police bosses at constant pressure to keep the crime rate low to earn people’s praise. On the other hand, the police themselves are eager to show their performance of curbing crimes. The ultimate result is that there were rampant non-registering of committed crimes.

Sometimes the non-registering of complaints may become a headache for even the political leaders. Such a series of non-registering malpractice was revealed by an enquiry committee during the rule of President Ershad. During the time from January 1987 to May 1989 in the jurisdiction of Hussein Pure police station of Kishorganj district, 43 incidents of dacoity took place. With a view to keeping the dacoity rate low the police registered only 03 incidents in the section appropriate to robbery suppressing the other 40 incidents totally. It was calculated that the Hussein Pure Thana police suppressed the offence of dacoity at a rate of 1400 per cent depriving the victims and encouraging the professional dacoits to continue their unholy business.

The increasing crime load and the insufficient number of officers encourage the station police officers to non-registering of complaints. In contrast with the ideal police- public ratio of one police officer per 400 people, in Bangladesh one police officer has to serve more than 1200 people. However, the problem proves more complex when one counts the number of the investigating officers. Bangladesh Police is a constable-based organization. More than 80% of 1,23,000 police persons in Bangladesh are constables. Constables are no more than the unskilled laborers with respect to both their pay scale and charter of duties. The problem is the worst at the supervision level. Bangladesh Police have only 01% per cent first class officers to supervise their under commands. The poor supervision over the work of the police stations contributes a lot to the non-registering of FIR.

The section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure leaves no scope for the police to avoid registering FIR for information of cognizable offences. It is, therefore, very natural that some wicked people will avail the opportunity of misusing this legal provision. However, the people misusing this provision are not at their liberty. If a person imparts false information to the police to harm or harass another, s/he should be prosecuted under section 182 of the Penal Code. On the other hand, if a person maliciously gives false information to the police against an innocent person and thereby caused the police to lodge an FIR, s/he will be subject to the punishment under section 211 of the Penal Code.

However, these two sections are not so much effective to punish the wicked people. Firstly, these sections are non-cognizable which profits the wicked people at the safest extent and pour cold water on the spirits of the investigating officers. Secondly, “Prosecution against complainants in false cases shall be instituted only when the charges made are deliberately and maliciously false and not when they are merely exaggerated.”

The non-registration of FIR by the police is a common problem to the criminal justice system across the globe. Some police departments take this seriously and have developed practical mechanism to ensure the registration of every complaints made by the public. In India the amended CrPC made it obligatory for the police to supply a copy of the FIR to the complaints free of cost so that they may not befool the poor and illiterate people by false assurance. It also makes the provision that if the officer in charge refuses to register the complaint, the informant can apply to the District Police Superintendent who would take necessary action accordingly. The Indian law commission recommended inserting a penal section in the penal code so that police officers refusing to record FIR could be punished.

In Bangladesh the problem is more complex and deeply rooted than it is generally perceived by the common people. Non-registering of FIR is a long practiced and organizationally tolerated police malpractice. However, the following measures could be taken to ensure the full registration of FIR in Bangladesh:
a. to eradicate financial corruption like demanding bribe for registering FIR;

1. to stop political interference in the police work by introducing a buffer body( police commission) between the police force and the government;
2. to increase the number of investigating officers where the constable-sub-inspector ratio would be at least 4:1;
3. to make the supervision over the work of the police stations more intensive by increasing the number of senior officers;
4. to shrink the jurisdiction of a Circle ASP by comprising not more than two police stations a police circle;
   f. to build the capacity and enhance efficiency of the investigating officers through training at home and abroad;
5. to change the evaluation method of police performances in addition to the existing crime statistics.
   h. to make the FIR recording officers, especially the officers-in-charge of the police stations strictly answerable to legal provisions in case of any allegation of non-registration of complaints.
   i. a complaint authority should be formed at the national and district level to address the complaints against the police officers including the no-registration of FIR.
6. to adopt the philosophy of community policing to ensure the public participation in police initiative and making the police accountable to the local community.

DELAY IN F.I.R.

As to what constitutes delay in lodging F.I.R is a question of fact depending upon the peculiar 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 a police station and scene of occurrence is not the only factor to be considered in determining the question. There are a variety of circumstances which a court has to keep in mind in order to decide on the question of promptness or otherwise as to the lodging of first report, viz; the condition the injured, distance between the police station and the place of occurrence, means of  communication, ignorance on account of  restive simplicity, fear of miscreants, etc. In a case reported in 1957 Cr. LJ page 1200 : AIR 1957 All 755, F.I.R. was lodged after 6 hours of the occurrence when the police station was only 4 miles. Their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court held the report to be prompt, considering the serious condition of the injured necessitating his being carried from one place to another slowly and carefully and the fact that at that hour of the night it took time to arrange for a conveyance. Similarly a first report lodged after two days of the occurrence was not thrown out as a suspicious document because from the facts of the case it appeared that the victim of the assault never intended to report the matter to the police station and he was obliged to do so when his condition started worsening and there was fear of his death. Their Lordships held that a first report lodged after six and a half hours of the occurrence is a prompt information considering that a murderous assault had taken place twelve miles away form the police station and the first thoughts of the information who was closely related to the victims of assault would have been to tend to the victims.

Though the delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot alone prove fatal to the prosecution case, the delay along with surrounding circumstances may weaken it. Just as delay in lodging the report weakens the case, so promptness justifies the information that the case is not a concocted story. Delay in making the report is a suspicious circumstance which puts the court on its guard to scrutinize the evidence with great caution. When the F.I.R. was lodged by an illiterate servant of the complaint, even though the complainant was present, after previous consultation with the village people, the court refused to attach that amount of importance to the report as it otherwise would have done. When a report about dacoit is made, it is not it otherwise would have done. When a report about dacoit is made, it is not unusual that a list of stolen property is not given because its preparation causes delay in lodging the F.I.R. It is, therefore, advisable for the informant to state, while making the report, that the said list is being prepared and would be given to the investigating officer within a few hours or within a day or two. If a first report is delayed on account of certain reasons or circumstances, the report should contain satisfactory explanation for the delay, otherwise a good deal of suspicion is created on its authenticity.

Where the F.I.R. is given very soon after the occurrence, the possibility of putting up a false version is remote. Prompt report guarantees veracity of the report. A very great importance to prompt filing should not be attached. Courts should take a common sense view. Time taken in lodging the F.I.R. factors involved such as the time required for composing before deciding the course of action. Delay in filing FIR affects its credibility. Delay is fatal when not sufficiently explained. Delay understandable.

WHAT COULD BE THE POSSIBLE REASONS OF DELAY?

Note: Reasons of the delay on the part of complainant is mentioned as “DOC”. Reasons of the dlelay on the part of police/ is mentioned as “DOP”.

1. Physical condition of the informer (DOC).
2. Psychological condition of the informer (DOC).
3. Natural calamities (Both).
4. Distance of place of occurrence (Both).
5. Ignorance of law of informer.(DOC).
6. Late detection of commission of crime (DOC).
7. Due to threat, promise and undue influence (DOC).
8. Economic & social and undue influence (DOC).

Reasons of delay should be explained in the FIR.

EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF F.I.R

F.I.R. id not a substantive piece of evidence and can be used only to corroborate the statement of the maker under Section 157, Evidence Act, or to contradict it under Section 145, Evidence Act. It cannot be used as evidence against the maker at the trial if he himself becomes an accused, not to corroborate or contradict other witnesses. Where a F.I.R. is used as an admission against the maker thereof, it has be taken as a whole and not in part. It would not permissible to take a part of it and to reject the rest. When the F.I.R. is not as full as it could be, it cannot be ignored altogether. It can used to corroborate the statements of the eye-witnesses. By itself it is not substantive evidence and can be used for the limited purposes under Section 157, Evidence Act, for the purpose of corroboration, or in a proper case under Section 32, Evidence Act, as a declaration as to the cause of the information’s death, or as a part of the informant’s conduct under Section 8, Evidence Act, or under Section 35, Evidence Act, without format proof to show that the implication of the accused was not an after-thought or as one res gestae. the inconsistency between the statements in the F.I.R. and the evidence of the informant at the trial would discredit the evidence of the informant to that extent but does not make the statement in F.I.R. the evidence upon the matter in the case. When there is a complete variance between the F.I.R. and the case for which the accused have been committed the case will be thrown out as unreliable. Where the F.I.R. is not the product of the brain of an illiterate and inexperienced rustic in whose case there may be a legitimate excuse of confusion or forgetfulness or incapacity to distinguish between material and immaterial facts, but was prepared by an experienced police officer who had personal knowledge of all the facts, in such a case the prosecution cannot take shelter behind the plea of confusion or forgetfulness or lack of intelligence. Wherever there is such an inconsistency it is the duty of the prosecution to explain in statement-in-chief the reason thereof F.I.R can be used to corroborate or discredit the informant only and no other witness. F.I.R can be used for corroboration or contradicting its maker. It can also be used to show the implication the accused to be not an after thought or that information is a piece of evidence res gestae. In certain cases it can be used under Section 21(1) or under Section 8 of the  Evidence Act. It is not admissible under Section 157 of Evidence Act.

Discrepancies in F.I.R and evidences are not always fatal. Where the F.I.R showed beating by four persons but the evidence showed that only two beat out of four, held, such a discrepancy would not throw doubt if the evidence is otherwise substantially true. Mere difference in the description of the actual height of the accused in the F.I.R is immaterial.

FIR being not substantive piece of evidence it can be used in the following ways: –
1. For corroboration purposes i.e. to corroborate the statement of the maker thereof u/s 157 Evidence Act but not of any other Witness .In some cases FIR was not full as it could be, it was held by Supreme Court, it can not be ignored altogether and can be used to corroborate the statement of the eyewitnesses.Cases: Sanker 1975 S.C. 757 or for the case of promotion in general. Gunadhar (1975 Cr.L.J. 1343 Cal. ) Sagar Chandra 1962 Cal 85 see Abdul Ganj 1954 Cr.L.J. 323.
2. For contradicting the evidence of person giving the information in accordance with Sec. 145 Evidence Act. Cases: 1944 Cal . 323 Supra. Apren Joseph 1973 S.C.I.
3. For proving as an admission against the informer u/s 18 /21 Evidence Act. Cases: State Vs. Kalwant Singh 1958 Cr.L.J. 129, 1962(1) Cr.L.J.82 (Raj) State Vs Shiv.
4. For refreshing informer’s memory u/s/ 159 Evidence Act. Cases: 1937 L 475
5. For impeaching the credit of an informer u/s155 Evidence Act. Cases: 1939 All 242
6. For proving informer’s conduct u/s 8 Evidence Act.
7. For establishing identity of accused, witnesses & for fixing spot & time as relevant facts u/s 9 Evidence Act.Cases: 1968 M.P. 45.(8 In certain case as FIR can be used under section 11 Evidence Act.Cases 1988 Cr.L.J.428.

F.I.R. BECOMES SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE
1. U/s 32(1) of the  Evidence Act. As during declaration when a person deposing about the cause of his death had died.
2. U/s 6 of the  Evidence Act. As ‘ resgestae ‘ e.g. when the injuries are being caused in the presence of SHO in PS and the injured makes A statement to the SHO saying that accused was injuring him.
3. U/s 160 of the  Evidence Act. When the informer who has written the FIR or read it, fails to recall memory those facts but is sure that the facts were correctly represented in FIR at the time he wrote it or read it.

F.I.R. BY ACCUSED

It is a matter of common experience that an accused person sometimes rushes to police station and discloses the commission of an offence. The purpose behind such disclosure is either to gain advantage over the other party or to off track the police or really to disburden himself of the guilt which weight heavily upon his conscience.

There was a lot of confusion as to when a F.I.R lodged by the accused is admissible against the make thereof or what portions of such F.I.R. are   admissible and what portions are inadmissible.

According to some High Courts portion of the information which can be properly separated from the confessional statement can be and should be admitted in evidence. If a confessional report is made, it can be split up in three parts: the first being introductory which describes the motive and opportunity for the crime and proves the presence of eye-witnesses, second, portions which are confessional and third, portions of statement which lead to discovery of dead body or other incriminating facts. The view was that the entire information is not rendered inadmissible in evidence only because it was given by an accused person. Those portions of the accused’s information which relate to the commission of the crime itself would be inadmissible but those portions which are introductory or narrate the motive and the opportunity for the crime or the presence of certain witnesses or supply information about discovery of facts which are admissible under Section 27, Evidence Act, would be admissible in evidence. Accordingly, it was held that where an accused person went to the police station and gave information about  the murder on the morning following the incident and after describing the events which happened prior to the night of occurrence, confessed his crime, the entire information supplied by him could not be disregarded by virtue of Section 25, Evidence Act. Portions of he first information which proved the events prior to the night of occurrence were held to be admissible.

Now the Supreme Court has set at rest all conflicts regarding the admissibility or otherwise of F.I.R. by an accused person.

In the earliest reported case there is a Privy Council decision of Dalu Singh Vs. Emperor, in which Their Lordships held that a report made at a police station by an accused person giving his version of the occurrence which does not amount to a confession is admissible in evidence. It was a case in which the accused made a report to the police that one a had beaten him. Since this report was not a confessional report it was held admissible in the trial for the murder of A’s wife.

In the case of Nisar Ali Vs. State of U.P Kapur,  J. who spoke for the court said, after narrating the fact :

A first information report, is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to corroborate the statement of the maker under Section 157, Evidence Act, or to contradict it under Section 145 of Act. It cannot be used as evidence against the maker at the trail if he himself becomes an accused, not to corroborate or contradict other witnesses. In this case, therefore, it is not evidence.

The word it cannot be used as evidence against the maker at the trail if he himself becomes an accused led to confusion which was clarified in faddi Vs. State of M.P. It was held by Raghbar Dayal, J. that in the context in which the observation is made in the circumstances that the Session Judge had definitely held the first information report lodged by the co-accused who was acquitted to be inadmissible against Nissasr Ali and that the High Court did not refer to it at all in its judgment, this observation really to a course a confessional F.I.R. cannot be used against the maker when he becomes and necessarily cannot be used against a co-accused.

What the court that observation ment was the F.I.R. lodged by the co-accused could not be evidence against Nasar Ali. The Supreme Court did not hold that a F.I.R. which is not a confession cannot be used as an admission under Section 21 of the Evidence Act.

In Faddia’s the Supreme Court held that where a person who lodged the F.I.R. regarding the commission on murder is himself subsequently accused of the offence of murder and the report lodged by him is not a confessional report but is an admission of some facts which have a bearing on the question as to how and by whom the murder was committed or whether the statement of the accused in the court denying the correctness of prosecution evidence, the F.I.R. is admissible to prove against him his own admissions which are relevant under Section 21, Evidence Act. Such F.I.R. is not hit either by Section 2,l Evidence Act or by Section 162, Cr. P.C.

In Aghnoo Nigesia V.s State of Bihar, it was held that a confession may consist of several parts and may reveal not only the actual commission of the crime but also the motive, the preparation, the opportunity, the weapon and the subsequent conduct of the accused. If the confession is tainted, the taint attaches to each part of it. It is not permissible in law to admit it in evidence as a non-confessional statement.

An exemption has been made to confessional F.I.R. viz; the information which falls within the ambit Section 27, Evidence Act. Since a confessional first information report is hit by Section 25, Section 25, Evidence Act, (Section 27, Evidence Act) being in the form of a proviso, partially lifts the ban imposed by Section 25, Evidence Act. Consequently, proof of facts falling under Section 27, Evidence Act, is permitted.

Sometimes it so happens that accused after commission of crime goes to Police Station and lodges an F.I.R., the procedural legal provision as well as the Indian Evidence Act are mentioned as under:

1. 162 Cr.P.C. does not hit such F.I.R.
2. 25 Evidence Act, is applicable if the statement is in the nature of
3. Confession but is relevant u/s 21 of the Evidence Act.
4. 25 of the Evidence Act “No confession made to a Police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence may it be before or after investigation.
5. If the information is non – confessional, it is admissible against the accused as an admission U/S 18 /21 of the Evidence Act and is relevant for corroborating the statement of the maker under section 157 of the Evidence Act.
6. For contradiction of the evidence of person giving the information U/S 145 of the Evidence Act.
7. For refreshing informers conduct U/S 159of the Evidence Act.
8. For impeaching the credit of an informer U/S 155 of the Evidence Act.
9. For Proving the informers conduct U/S 8 of the Evidence Act
10. U/S 32 (1) of Evidence Act (Dying declaration)
11. U/S 6 Evidence Act when the injuries are being caused in the presence of SHO in a Police Station.

NON-MENTION OF NAMES OF ACCUSED, WITNESS AND WEAPONS

1. Non-mention of names of accused :

Where the absence of names of accused persons does not indicate that the whole story was concocted, and the way in which the report was made and taken down indicates a rustic simplicity rather than a well-planned deceit and the names of the assailants were disclosed at the time of inquest, the omission of names in the F.I.R is not fatal. In a case where report was given to Police Patel, it is not incumbent on the latter to enquire about the names of accused persons. When information by means of telegram was immediately dispatched after the occurrence  but omitted to mention the names of assailants, the omission is a strong circumstance in favour of the accused. The omission of the name of an accused person raises an element of doubt about his identity. But if there is reasonable explanation, it is immaterial. Failure to mention the names of known accused person in the F.I.R may justify their acquittal.

1. Non-mention of names of witness and weapons :

No hard and fast rule has been laid down as to how to assess the value of evidence given by witness who is not mentioned in the F.I.R. Each witness has to be judged according to his own worth. There are certain situations, where it is expected that names of witness will find mention in the F.I.R and on account of their non-mention a reasonable doubt is created at to their presence at the scene of occurrence. When a complainant lodged the report after a few days of the occurrence but did not mention the names of witnesses though according to hi they were in close proximity, failure to given the names of witnesses will create a great doubt as to their presence on the spot. When the information had met those persons who had assembled at the house of he deceased but none of them were eve-witnesses and they had only seen the deceased exhibiting symptoms of poisoning and heard him accusing the accused of having given the poison and both these facts were mentioned in the first report, it was held that it was not necessary to mention the names of witnesses. When the first report does not mention the name of any witnesses but merely says that the entire village had collected and seen the incident, the evidence of certain independent person who bear no ill-will towards accused cannot be thrown out only because their names were not mentioned in the F.I.R. If witnesses are not mentioned in the F.I.R. there must be reasonable explanation for such omission. Influence of the accused and fear of witness being won over was considered a good reason for non-disclosure of names of witnesses. When a person has received injuries, there cannot be the least doubt that he was in the affair and the non-mention of his name in the F.I.R. is of no consequence.

The trend of authorities it appears that the correct legal position on the subject it that a court must keep in mind the failure of the informant to mention a witness’s name in the F.I.R. but must not consider it in itself a sufficient ground for rejecting the testimony of such a witness. The courts must decide why the name of a witness is not mentioned in the F.I.R. and why the witness is deposing for the prosecution and against the accused person.

Omission to mention eye-witness who saw the assailant running and who appeared at the sight of murder and met the complainant is not inconsequential. Mere non-mention of the name of the witness does not mean that he had not seen the occurrence.

PROOF OF F.I.R

Being the earliest version of the occurrence, F.I.R. is very important document which has to be pleased before the judge and the jury in order to Judge the truth or falsity of the case. The non-production of such a document has very serious consequences because it prejudices the accused and deprives him of a valuable right of cross-examination. Suppression of F.I.R. raises a presumption against the prosecution because the accused are hampered in their defence. It is not an uncommon experience, though rare, that police sometimes minimises a serious offence into one of less importance in the eyes of administration; for instance, dacoity cases are converted into cases of simple theft. In such situations; since the prosecution is not obliged to stick to the F.I.R as recorded by the police and can challenge the correctness thereof, it is bound to produce the F.I.R. before court.

When prosecution neither produces neither produces the person who went to report at the police station nor the man who scribed the report at the police station, court cannot refer to the F.I.R. When a F.I.R. was conveyed to the police station by telephone and the alleged informant died before he could be produced in court and there was nothing to show that the report in fact was made by the information, it was held that the fact that a report was made is relevant but it cannot be said who in fact was the informant or whether the contents of the report were correct. Their Lordships have also held that a written F.I.R. satisfying all the conditions of Section 154, Criminal Procedure code, is not always essential and the truth or falsity of the prosecution case will be judged by evidence produced before court. The admissibility of a F.I.R. depends not on the fact that it is signed by the person making it but on the fact that a first information report given in writing to taken down by a police officer would be a part of the official record as the substance of such information is to be entered in the book kept by the Station officer in the form prescribed and that attract the operation of Section 35, Evidence Act. Where the author of F.I.R. was not examined in Magistrate’s Court nor in Court of Sessions, but prosecution witnesses admitted and accepted the report it was held that the F.I.R. could be taken into consideration.

DECISIONS

Police report submitted on the F.I.R.  of the husband of the woman is not a complaint within the meaning of the term used in section 199 Cr. P.C‑ The bar against taking cognizance of offences u/s 497/498 of Penal Code otherwise than upon a complaint by the husband is total and complete‑The cognizance taken on the police report has been illegal vitiating the entire trial.

The State Vs. Aynuzzaman 6 BCR (AD) 391

Vital contra I diction between the recitals of the F. 1. R. and the statements of witness‑box leads to the conclusion that the accused was implicated falsely out of enmity.

Abdur Rashid Vs. The State I MLR (AD) 11

It is neither the beginning nor the ending of every case. It is only a complaint to get the law or order in motion. It is only an initiative to move the machinery and to investigate into a cognizable offence. It is only at the investigation stage that all the details can be gathered and filled up. The first information report cannot be treated as the first and the last word of a prosecution case.

Al Amin Vs. The State; 19 BLD (ACD) 30Z

The First Information Report is not a substantive piece of evidence and if can be used only for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting the maker thereof its value lies in being the earliest recorded version of the prosecution story.

Siraj Miah Vs. 7he State 17 BID (HCD) 295.

The object of the FIR is to make known at the earliest opportunity what the case of the prosecution is against the alleged offenders. It is always viewed with grave suspicion when the story made at the trial differs in material particulars from the story given in the FIR .

Kamala and others Vs. The State 15 BLD (HCD) 449

 Unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR inevitable gives rise to suspicion which requires the court to look for the possible motive and the explanation for the delay for considering its effect on the prosecution version of the case.           

The State Vs. Tajul Islam and others, 15 BLD (HCD) 53.

First Information Report is not a substantive piece of evidence andit can be used to contradict the maker thereof but when FIR was not lodged by an eye witness contradiction of the same by an eye witness will not prejudice prosecution case.

                                                                                                9 BLD (HCD) 382.

The decision reported in PLD 1978 Lahore page 1285 where their Lordships held that an FIR is an information relating to the commission of cognizable offence reported to the police by any person with the object of putting the police in motion in order to investigate. It is not an encyclopedias. It is not the beginning & ending of every case. It is only a complaint to set the law in motion. It is only at the investigating stage that all the details can be gathered and filled up.

Mujibur Rahman and others Vs. The State 4 BCR (HCD) 231.

 Non‑mentioning of the names of the accused persons or some other material facts in the FIR lodged by a person not an eye witness to the occurrence is not always fatal to the prosecution when such absence is satisfactorily explained.

         Forkan alias Farhad and another Vs. 7he’State, 15 BLD (AD) 163.

The GD Entry being the earliest in point of time containing facts of the murder though not signed by the informant was in fact the First Information Report and the information recorded by the police later on the basis of statement of PW. 1 could at best be treated as one under section 161 Cr. P.C.

 Shahjahan Vs. The State (Criminal)’575.

When the First Information Report is lodged within minimum possible time, the story of such Report should not be disbelieved only because of some somersault on the part of the informant.

        Khorma (Md) alias Khorshed Vs. The State (Criminal) 51 DLR (AD) 317.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), Section‑ 154:

The very purpose of recording a first information report is to indicate what was the manner in which the occurrence was rela1ed when the case was first started and also to show what were the facts given out immediately after the occurrence and reported to the police at the earliest available opportunity. The Court is entitled to note the conflict between the first recorded version of the prosecution case and the story that is made out in course of the trial. A comparison between two such versions of the case is not only permissible, but imperative in the context of the circumstances.First Information Report does not increase the weight of the evidence of anybody save and except of the informant and cannot in law be used to increase the weight of the evidence of any person on whose behalf it has been lodged. And to say to the jury that it does so increase is a serious mis‑direction.

Keramat Ali Sheikh Vs. Crown (1952) 4 DLR 435.

The presence of the witnesses names in FIR is only a test for determining whether they were present at the time of the occurrence or not. It is no more proof if their veracity than the absence of their names in tne report is praof of their mendacity,

                  Khera Vs. Crown (1957).9 DIR (WP) 9

Telegram, if can, be treated as FIR‑ Unsigned telegram and telephone messages are not First Information Reports and if, after the receipt of a telegram or a telephonic message, the police proceed to, the spot and take down the information and get it signed, the statement would be the First Information Report.

                 Crown Vs. Faiz Mahammad,2 PCR 210.

 A First Information Report cannot be used to contradict any prosecution witness. It can be used to, contradict only the witness who lodged it and that also in certain circumstances.

Crown vs. Abdul Bari (1950) 2 DLR 120.

The prosecutor also has the right (with the permission of the Court) of contradicting the maker thereof Such contradiction cannot be used as substantive evidence but can be taken into consideration.

Adalat Vs. Crown (195i6 8 DLR (FQ 69.

First Information Report‑ Principle of natural Justice, i.e., audi alteram partum, does not apply to the making of a FIR‑Opportunity of hearing the accused person before registration of a case is neither necessary nor possible.

Muhammad Hayat Vs. Ae Chief Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner (1971) 23 DLR (Lah.) 34.

Whether a statement recorded by a police officer is an FIR or a statement made in the course of investigation is one of fact.

               Muhammad Siddique Vs. Crown (1954) 6 DLR (FC) 56.

An entry made in the daily diary of the police station on receipt of a telephone message ‘ from a head constable to whom the report of the  occurrence was stated to have been made by the complaint is not a first information report.

              Crown Vs. Faiz Mahammad 2 PCR 2RE”

The vital facts have not been mentioned in the first information report although the FIR was lodged after a lapse of 13 days without any explanation which belies the evidence of the PWs and hence the condemned prisoner is untitled to get benefit of doubt.

         The State Vs. Syed Habibur Rahman @ Rocket 20 DLR (HCD)26.

If there is an information relating to the commission of the cognizable offence it falls undersea. 154, even though the police officer may have neglected to record it. Non cognizable offence‑ Mere irregularity like investigation by an officer not authorised to investigate a non‑cognizable offence does not affect the legality of a proceeding of a court below.

           Golam Moula Master and others Vs. State (Criminal) 140.

Where facts narrated in the FIR and the charge sheet do not disclose the offences alleged or any other offence under the Penal Code or under any other law, whether proceeding is liable to be quashed.

        Al‑haj Md. Serajuddowlah Vs. The State; I I BLD (AD) 151

Police has statutory right to investigate into a cognizable offence whether a report is made to that effect or not and if reported, irrespective of the authority of the reporter.                              

 Muhammad Hayat Vs. 77te Chief Settlement Officer (1971) 23 DLR (Lah) 34.

FIR cannot be substituted for evidence given on oath and when there is no other evidence the facts mentioned in the information could not be relied upon as proof of the offence alleged.                                                 

Babul Vs. State 42 DLR (AD) 186.

 Section 161. Examination of witnesses by police.

Ss. 161, 162 &‑ 428‑ Failure of justice will be occasioned if reliance is place on the evidence of material prosecution witnesses due the witholding of their statements recorded in the case diary’ and no useful purpose will be served by examining the 10 by the appellate Court. 7 BLD (HCD) 426.

FIR is not an encyclopaedia. It is not the beginning and ending of every case. It is only a complaint to set the Law or order in motion. It is only an initiative to move machinery and to investigate into a cognizable offence. It is only at the investigation stage that all the details can be gathered and filled up. The F.I.R. thus should not be treated as the last word of the prosecution in the manner. So to reject the story on the ground of non­-mentioning the fact in the F.I.R. is to show an inadequate appreciation of criminal investigation and weight to be attached to the evidence in criminal case.

Syed Ahmed Vs. A. Khaleque & ors.

It is contended on behalf of the condemned prisoner that the FIR cannot be termed as FIR as it was not the earliest version of the prosecution case as the police started investigation before lodging FIR. If such contention is accepted then the FIR will be treated as statement u/s. 161 Cr PC. When there is no contradiction or omission or embellishment in the deposition of  there is no reason to disbelieve the Ext‑1, the FIR.

                                                   State Vs. Romana Begum; 5 BLC (2000)‑HCD‑332.

COMPLIANT

 INTRODUCTION

The complaint is the most important things in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The complaint case may be filed in oral or in written in the Magistrate Court, who has having power to take cognizance. After lodging the complaint case by the complainant, the magistrate shall take necessary step about that complaint for the further proceedings. There has no necessary to details about the complaint to the Magistrate. Now we will be discussing the relevant provisions related to the Complaint Case.

1. Complaint:

According to the Settion‑4(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ‘complaint’ means the allegation made orally or in written to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but it does not include the report of a police officer.

Complaint petition is filed in court and with the Magistrate having power to take cognizance of an offence. On receipt of a complaint petition two courses are open to the Magistrate for being satisfied as to whether he should issue process against the alleged offender: he may at once examine the complaint and the witnesses present u/s 200 or may direct a judicial inquiry into the matter for ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint u/s 202. If the Magistrate decides to process u/s 202, he shall have to pass an order giving reasons for so preferring this course instead of the one laid down in section 200. Before directing an inquiry u/s 202 the complainant is to be examined on oath u/s 200. Non examination of the complainant is highly illegal (37 DLR (com) 355 : 28 DLR 389 and Ref. 17 DLR (sc) 626).

In another sense, in law, the plaintiff’s initial pleading, corresponding to the libel in admiralty, the bill in equity, and the claim in civil law. The complaint, called in common law a declaration, consists of a title, a statement showing venue or jurisdiction, one or more counts containing a brief formal exposition of facts giving rise to the claim asserted, and a demand for relief. Thus, it informs the defendant of the plaintiff’s claim and initiates the pretrial process of narrowing the case to one or more sharply defined issues of law or fact. In common law and under early procedural codes, the task of defining the issues was performed solely by the pleadings, but modern procedural systems have added pretrial conferences and deposition and discovery procedures for this purpose.

2. Complaint case:

A case initiated on the basis of a complaint petition is generally classed as C.R case i.e., Complaint Register Case.

3. In which court it is filed:

Complaint petition is filed in court and with the Magistrate having power to take cognizance of an offence.

4. When it is filed:

Complaint Petition filed on the grounds where the Police Station or Thana was not taking or refusing the complaint of the petitioners.

5. Why it is fled:

The Complaint Petition has been filed to the Magistrate for secure or end of the justice.

6. Under which section it is filed:

Complaint Petition has been filed under Section‑200 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1898.

7. Substance of a complaint:

In the complaint petition under describing matters should be mentioned:

1. Details and correct information of the offence which has done by the accused. The charge shall be clearand specific.
2. Time, place, date of the committed offence
3. Name of the offence which has been done against the petitioner.
4. The conditions of the Complaint:
5. The complaint must be made to a Magistrate; case.
6. Complaint may be oral or writing.
7. BB Mitra says‑ a complaint must disclose that an offence has been committed.
8. In a case refers, the complain must be made to Magistrate with a view to his taking action under this code.
9. A complaint need not necessary be made by the person injured by may be mad to any person aware of the offence.
10. In the case refers‑ complain does not require statement of facts beyond allegation that some persons have committed an offence.
11. The report of a police officer whether in a non‑cognizable offence or in cognizable offence does not amount to a complaint.

9.        How to File a Complaint Against Your Lawyer :

After paying a hefty retainer fee, you discover your lawyer is crooked as a dog’s         hind leg.  How should you proceed? If you have compelling evidence of your lawyer’s   unethical deeds, you can file a complaint with your local disciplinary agency.

Instructions:

• Decide whether your complaint is valid. Remember, you must be able to prove conclusively your lawyer has violated his profession’s ethical standards.
• Collect all records pertaining to your complaint. Make copies of receipts, court documents, and contracts signed between you and your lawyer.
• Contact the organization in your state that disciplines or withholds lawyers’ licenses. Visit the American Bar Association’s website to find a listing of state disciplinary agencies.
• Download or request a complaint form. Some states require you submit a letter detailing your grievance.
• Be professional and factual when explaining your complaint. Attach copies of relevant documentation and records.

10.     How to File A Complaint Against A Police Officer

File A Complaint Against A Police OfficerHow to File A Complaint Against A Police Officer  User-Submitted Article

Unfortunately sometimes the public feels that they are unjustly treated or abused by the police     and wish to file a complaint against a police       officer.
This can sometimes be an intimidating task because if the officer’s friends are on staff, the person filing the complaint is scared of being harassed. I will teach you how to file a complaint against a police officer. Therefore in the following way below we can file a complaint against a police officer

•  Using a telephone, call the police station and ask directly what are the procedures to file a complaint against a police officer. You should not need to answer any questions to any officer, but rather you should just be told to come in and fill out a complaint form. If you are interrogated or mistreated on the telephone, get in contact with a lawyer and proceed with the lawyers advice. If you are treated with courtesy and respect with descent answers on the procedure, proceed to step 2.
• Go into the police station and politely ask the help desk for the forms needed to file a complaint. Be kind and courteous at all times. If you are given the form, fill it out in detail and turn it in. Once you turn it in, leave the station immediately. Do not stay around for any interviews.
• If you feel intimidated or scared to go into the station to file a complaint, type a letter to the chief of police and be as detailed and professional as possible in your letter. If the station is large and for a big city, you can file a complaint with internal affairs.

Distinction between G.R. Case and C.R. Case

1. A Police Case or a General Register Case means a case where the information regarding the commission of a cognizable or non‑cognizable offence is given orally or in writing to a police officer in‑charge of a police station and such information is entered in the General Diary kept by the police. On the other hand, C.R. Case means Complaint Register Case. The case, which is filed before a Magistrate upon complaint is called C.R. case.
2. General Register Case dealt with the under section 154 and 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On the other hand, Complaint Register Case deals with Section 200 to 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is dealt with the complaints to Magistrate. On examination of the complaint under section 200 of the code of criminal Procedure Magistrate shall take cognizance of an offence under section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. If the case initiates on the lodging of the FIR with the officer‑in ‑charge of a police station a copy of the same is forwarded to the court whereupon a G.R. Case starts. On the other hand, Complaint Register Case starts when the complaint is lodge before the Magistrate empowered in this behalf that takes cognizance under section 190 of the CrPC.

TYPES OF COMPLAINT

There are two types of Complaint in our Law, such as :-

1. Civil Complaint
2. Criminal Complaint 

Civil Complaint:

A civil complaint initiates a civil lawsuit by setting forth for the court a claim for relief from damages caused, or wrongful conduct engaged in, by the defendant. The complaint outlines all of the plaintiff’s theories of relief, or causes of action (e.g., Negligence, Battery, assault), and the facts supporting each Cause of Action. The complaint also serves as notice to the defendant that legal action is underway. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern construction of complaints filed in federal courts. Many state courts follow the same rules as the federal courts, or similar rules.

The caption opens the complaint and identifies the location of the action, the court, the docket or file number, and the title of the action. Each party to the lawsuit must be identified in the caption and must be a real party in interest, that is, either a person who has been injured or harmed in some way, or a person accused of causing the injury or harm. In addition, a party must have the capacity to sue or to be sued. If a party lacks capacity owing to mental incompetence, for example, the suit may be dismissed. Any number of parties may be named and joined in a single lawsuit as long as all meet the requirements of capacity and all are real parties in interest.

Courts of limited–subject matter jurisdiction, such as federal courts, require the complaint to demonstrate that the court has jurisdiction to hear the case. In general-jurisdiction courts, such as most state courts, a jurisdictional allegation is unnecessary.

The most critical part of the complaint is the claim, or cause of action. The claim is a concise and direct statement of the basis upon which the plaintiff seeks relief. It sets forth the Rule of Law that forms the basis of the lawsuit and recounts the facts that support the rule of law. Finally, the claim concludes that the defendant violated the rule of law, thereby causing the plaintiff’s injuries or damages, and that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. For example: A negligence claim might begin with a statement that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff; that the defendant breached that duty; and that, as a result, the plaintiff suffered injuries or other damages. The conclusion then states that because the defendant’s breach was the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, the plaintiff is entitled to compensation from the defendant.

The complaint may state separate claims or theories of relief in separate counts. For example, in a negligence case, count 1 might be for negligence, count 2 for breach of Warranty, and count 3 for Fraud. Each count contains a separate statement of the rule of law, supporting facts, and conclusion. There is no limit to the number of counts a plaintiff may include in one complaint.

Federal courts and other jurisdictions that follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a brief, simple pleading known as a notice pleading. The notice pleading informs the defendant of the allegations and the basis for the claim. The rules require that the complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” (Fed. R. Civil P. 8[a]). Rule 8(c)(1) states, “Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct.”

Following the claim, the prayer for relief or demand for judgment appears. Commonly called the wherefore clause, the prayer for relief demands judgment for the plaintiff and relief in the form of the remedies the plaintiff requests. The plaintiff may demand relief in several forms. Money damages are compensation for injuries and loss. General money damages cover injuries directly related to the defendant’s actions—such as pain and suffering, or emotional distress. Special money damages arise indirectly from the defendant’s actions and may include lost wages or medical bills. The court

awards exemplary or Punitive Damages when the defendant’s actions are particularly egregious. The purpose of punitive damages is to punish the defendant and deter similar wrongdoing. Other types of damages are recovery of property, injunctions, and Specific Performance of a contractual obligation. The plaintiff may demand alternative relief or several different types of relief, in the same complaint (Fed. R. Civ. P. 8[a]).

A demand for a jury trial may be included near the end of the complaint. The complaint must be signed by the plaintiff’s attorney, indicating that the attorney has read the complaint; that it is grounded in fact, to the best of the attorney’s knowledge, information, and belief; and that it is brought in Good Faith.

Criminal Complaint:

A criminal complaint charges the person named or an unknown person with a particular offense. For example, after the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, authorities issued a john doe complaint, charging an unknown person or persons with the crime.

A criminal complaint must state the facts that constitute the offense and must be supported by Probable Cause. It may be initiated by the victim, a police officer, the district attorney, or another interested party. After the complaint is filed, it is presented to a magistrate, who reviews it to determine whether sufficient cause exists to issue an arrest warrant. If the magistrate determines that the complaint does not state sufficient probable cause, the complaint is rejected and a warrant is not issued. In federal court, the complaint is presented under oath (Fed. R. Crim. P. 3).

PROCEDURE TO FILE A COMPLAINT CASE (C.R. CASE)

Complaint petition is filed in court and with the Magistrate having power to take cognizance of an offence. On receipt of a complaint petition two courses are open to the Magistrate for being satisfied as to whether he should issue process against the allege offender: he may at once examine the complainant and the witnesses present under section 200 or may direct a judicial inquiry in to the matter for ascertaining the truth o falsehood of the complaint under section 202. If the Magistrate decides to process under section 202, he shall have to pass an order giving reasons for so preferring this course instant of the one laid down in section 200. Before directing and inquiry under section 202 the complainant is to be examined on oath under section 200.

Non‑examination of the complainant is highly illegal.66 The primary consideration of the Magistrate shall be that the process of the court is not abuse and that an innocent person is not harassed, it should be remembered that this decision to issue process against the alleged offender amounts to taking cognizance of the case.

(A)       Procedure under Section‑200:

A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and such of the witnesses present, if any as he may consider necessary. The substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant or witnesses so examined, and also by the Magistrate. On examination of the complainant or the witnesses if the Magistrate is satisfied that the complaint bears substance he will issue summons or warrants as the case may be as per column schedule‑2 of the Code for the appearance or for production on arrest of the accuse( When the complaint is made in writing by a court or a public servant in his office capacity no such examination is necessary. The purpose of examination of thd complainant under section‑200 is to see whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding and not whether there is a sufficient ground for conviction. Conviction ca only be determined at the trail and not at the stage of inquiry. 67 If the complaint i presented to a Magistrate not competent to take cognizance of the case he shall return the complaint for presentation in the proper court.

(B)       Procedure under section‑202:’

The first duty of the Magistrate with whom complaint petition is filed is to examine the complainant and on his being satisfied prima face he will decide whether the inquiry held by him under section‑200 or get the same done under section‑202. If he decides t get the inquiry under section‑200 he may, for the ends of justice, postpone issuance o process against the alleged offender and may himself held inquiry for ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint or may direct such inquiry or investigation to be help by a Magistrate sub‑ordinate to him (the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence) o by a police officer or by such other person as the Magistrate thinks fit. A Magistrate of third class cannot direct such inquiry into complaints involving offences tribal by the court of Sessions, the magistrate, shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and shall examine them on oath.

The Magistrate may dismiss the complaint if after consideration of the statement of the complainant and witnesses or of the result of the inquiry or investigation; he is of the opinion that the complaint bears no substance. In such cases the Magistrate shall briefly record his reasons for so dismissing the complaint. On the other hand if the Magistrate is of the opinion that the complaint bears substance, he shall issue summons or warrant as the case may be according to the fourth column of the second schedule for appearance or for production of the accused under; arrest before the Court.

(C)      Examination of Complainant (Section-200) :

A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall at once examine upon oath the complaint and such as of the witnesses present, if any, as he may consider necessary and the substance of the examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant or witness so examined, and also by the Magistrate:

Provided as follows:

1. when the complaint is made in writing, nothing herein contained shall be deemed to require such examination before transferring the case under section‑192;

1A.      when the complaint is made in writing nothing herein contained shall be deemed to require such examination in any case in which the complaint has been made by a court or by a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties;

2. When the case has been transferred under section‑192 and the Magistrate so transferring it has already examined the complainant and witness if any, the Magistrate to whom it is so transferred shall not be bound to re‑examine them.

Section 200 has been amended by substituting “upon oath the complainant and such of the witnesses present, if any, as he may consider necessary” for the words and commas “the complainant and the witnesses present, ‘if any’ upon oath”‑ these change has relaxed the compulsion of examining all the cited witnesses in the complaint petition and now the Magistrate scrutinizing the complaint petition may examine such number of witnesses as he may consider necessary.

The word “if any” makes it clear that the Magistrate shall examine witnesses if there are present and that he will not commit any illegality if he summons the accused persons only after examining the complainant in the absence of any other witness.

Examination of the complainant on oath when taking cognizance of an offence under section‑200 is mandatory. Failure to do so renders the proceeding liable to be quashed .

(D)       Section‑201: Procedure by Magistrate not competent to take cognizance of the case:

1. If the complaint has been made in writing to a Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of the case, he shall return the complaint for presentation to the proper court with an endorsement to that effect.
2. If the complaint has not been made in writing, such Magistrate shall direct the complainant to the proper court.

(E)       Section‑202: Postponement for issue of process:

1. Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorized to take cognizance, or which has been transferred to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit, for reasons to be recorded in writing, postpone the issue of process for compelling the attendance of the person complained against, and either inquire in to the case himself or, if he is a Magistrate other than a Magistrate of the third class, direct an inquiry or investigation to be made by any Magistrate subordinate to him, or by a police officer, or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint:

Provided that, save where the complaint has been made by a court, no such direction shall be made unless the provisions of section‑200 have been complied with:

‘Provided further that where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complaint of is triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the Magistrate may postpone the issue of process for compelling the attendance of the person complained against and may make or cause to be made an inquiry or investigation as mentioned in this sub‑section for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint.

2. If any inquiry or investigation under this section is made by a person not being a Magistrate or a police officer, such person shall exercise all the power conferred by this code on an officer‑in‑charge of a police station, except that he shall not have power to arrest without warrant.

2A.      Any Magistrate inquiring into a case under this section may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath:

Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine then on oath.

2B.      where the police submits the final report, the Magistrate shall be competent to Accept such report and discharge the accused.

‘Section‑202 has been amended by adding second proviso to sub‑section‑(I) and also by adding sub‑section‑(2B).

By adding this second proviso an extra precaution has been taken by directing the Magistrates to hold inquiry before process is issued against the accused persons with respect to offences triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions. The purpose is to check liberal acceptance of complaint petitions and there by to nip in the bud the initiation of false cases and also to minimize accumulation of great number of cases in the Court of Sessions. The same intention of minimizing accumulation of cases appears to have been expressed in sub‑section 213 which provides for acceptance of the final report by the Magistrates as off would be submitted by the investigating policies. However, it would be wrong to pay no heed to the naraji petition or to give a total go bye to the scrutiny of the papers submitted by the police and to take a decision independent of the police report where it is called for.

Case References:

The second proviso to section 202 (1) Cr PC, inserted by the Ordinance No‑ XXVI of 1982 provides by way of clarification, that in complaint cases which appear to be triable by the Court of Sessions if the Magistrate decides to postpone the issue of process, he nay make or cause to be made and enquiry or investigation to ascertain the truth or falsity of the complaint. The proviso to Section 202 (2A) provides that if it appears the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath and section 202 (213) provides that the Magistrate shall be competent to accept the final report submitted by the police and discharge the accused in cases triable by the Magistrate or 72 exclusively by the Court of Sessions. Magistrate taking cognizance of the case on the report made under section 202 is not competent to go into the question whether the accused has been implicated out of enmity‑ this shall be a matter of the court trying the 73 accused. In enquiry under section 202 a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to ask a person complained against to take part in any manner in the enquiry and cannot be called upon to 74 submit any explanation.

(F)       Section‑203; Dismissal of complain :

The Magistrate before whom a complaint is made or to whom it has been transferred, may dismiss the complaint, if, after considering the statement on oath (if any) of the complainant and the result of the investigation or inquiry (if any) under section 202; there is in his judgment no sufficient ground for proceeding. In such cases he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing.

(G)       Section‑205 A; Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence :

1. When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (herein after referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to he Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject‑ matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation.
2. If a report is made by the investigating police officer under Section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire in to or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases where institute on a police report.

FORMATE OF COMPLAINT CASE

1. R Case / Petition Case

A body C. R. Case can be divided in to three parts­

1. Cause Title
2. Statement of Facts
3. Prayer portion
4. Cause Title
5. a) Name of the Court
6. b) Case Number
7. c) Section of Offences
8. d) Name and address of the parties
9. e) Name of the witnesses
10. f) Place, Time and Date of occurrence
11. Statement of Facts
12. a) Introducing the Complainant
13. b) Introducing the accused
14. c) Commencement of the cause of action
15. d) Gradually evolution of the fact
16. e) Fact that shows that finally cause of action has been arisen
17. f) To show that the learned court has the all kinds Jurisdiction to try the case.

Prayer portion

Enclosed:

1. All supporting documents like deeds, documents, papers, copy of G.D, Title deed, Cheque etc.
2. Firisti form
3. Vokalat Nama
4. If petition is on Curtige paper then Court fee of 20 taka but if petition is on Blue paper then additional Court fee for per page of taka 5 taka must be annexed.

Drafting of C.R. Case

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, DHAKA

Source: C.R. Case No .210/2010

IN THE MATTER OF

An allegation u/s. 383/384/109 of the penal code of 1860.

‑AND­

IN THE MATTER OF

Ahmed Sharif Ripon

Son of Late Abdur Rashid

Khilgaon, P.S‑Khilgaon

Dist.‑Dhaka.

 

                                         ……………… Complainant

–VERSUS­-

 

1. Sumon Ahmed
2. Jahidul Hoq

1450/C, Khilgaon, P.S‑Khilgaon

District‑Dhaka.

 

                                                                                                 ……………… Accused Person

 

 

 

 

 

Name of the witnesses

1. The complainant himself
2. Monjur Rahman

Son of Ali Ahmed

3. Nur Ali

Son of kader Ali

All of them form

Khilgaon, P.S‑Khilgaon

District: Dhaka.                                                                        Date of Occurrence

On 05‑05‑2010

Time of Occurrence

At 7.15 a.m

Place of Occurrence

Residence of the Complainant.

 

HEREWITH:

1. That the complainant petitioner is an educated, religious and also abiding citizen of the county. On the other hand the accused one not so educated but they are powerful and dangerous persons of that area.
2. That the complainant and the accused are of same area and the residence of the complainant is also close to the accused.
3. That on a 05‑05‑2010 at 7.00 am the complainant were going to school with his son near the residence of the complainant. At that time the complainants wife, Brother and servant were at home.
4. That at about 7.15 am the accused persons were stand in front of the complainant. They threatens complainant that they will keep complainants child in wrongful confinement unless he will sign and deliver to accused a promissory note binding complainant to pay certain’ money to accused.
5. That the complainant sings and delivers the note.
6. That at about 8.00 am the complainant went to the police station to lodge on FIR but the duty officer refused to entry it since the accused are politicians and powerful of that area.
7. That because of unable to lodge FIR against the accused, the complainant begs to prefer this petition of complaint before this honorable court.
8. That the crime committed with in the jurisdiction of this learned court and the honorable court has every kinds of jurisdiction to try the case.

Wherefore, it is humbly prayer that your honour would graciously be pleased to take the cognizance of this case, issue warrant ‑of arrest against accused persons and punish them on holding trial and deal according to law for the ends of justice.

And for this act of kindness your humble petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.

Conclusion

In the above discussion, we found it that the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is a sufficient grounds for proceeding, he may issue a summons for attendance of the accused or may issue warrant for causing the accused to be brought or to appear to certain time before such Magistrate. We also found it that if the Magistrate has found the sufficient grounds on oath of the Complaint then he may dismiss the complaint. On receipt of the Complaint of an offence if the Magistrate finds out any reasonable grounds then he may records it in writing and postpones the issue of the process, and he may forward for inquiry or investigation by the police officer of the complaint.

REFERENCE:

• PRECIOUS THOUGHTS AND INSTRUCTION FROM

1. ABDUR RAHIM (LECTURER)

• TEXT BOOK ON GODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

1. ABDUL HALIM, BARRISTER-AT-LAW

• CRPC FROM THE BOOK OF ZAHIRUL HAQUE
• INTERNET