0

Understanding the First Information Report-(FIR)

Articles , ,

INTRODUCTION

The First Information Report, commonly referred to as FIR, which is a crucial legal document to initiate a criminal proceedings. It serves as the primary information to the law enforcement agencies to record the information about the alleged criminal activity. This article aims to clear the understanding of FIR, exploring its significance, procedure of filing FIR and role of FIR in the criminal justice system.

 

What is an FIR?

An FIR is written document which records the information about the cognizable offences like robbery, murder, theft, etc.

Procedure of filing an FIR.

In India the FIR is governed by the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 154. of the Cr.P.C. deals with the Information in cognizable cases. According to the section, informer will go to the officer in charge of Police Station and will give him the information about the cognizable offence. The information may be oral or in writing. If the information given to the officer is oral then Officer in Charge will write it down after that he will read out the whole complaint to the informer and will take the sign of the informer on the FIR which Officer has written down. One copy of FIR must be given to the informer free of cost and Officer has to maintain the FIR in his diary for the record as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.

Provided that if the information is given by the women against whom an offence under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354c, section 354D , section 376, section 376A, section 376AB,  section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB, section 376E, or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) alleged to have been committed or attempted , then such information shall be recorded by women police officer.

In the event that the person against whom an offence under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 354, section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB, section 376E or section 509 of Indian Penal Code ( 45 of 1860),  is alleged to have been committed or attempted , is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled then in such cases the such information shall be recorded at the residence of such person who seeking to report such offences or at the choice of place of such person in the presence an interpreter or a special educator as the case may be

Section 155. of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with FIR in non- cognizable offences, in non –cognizable offences the informer or the complainant will go to the officer in charge of the police station and will give him the information about the alleged offence in written form or orally and will write it down and seek the permission of Magistrate to investigate the matter, without the order of Magistrate there is no power to investigate in the matter.

If the information has given to the officer in charge of the police station contain the information of cognizable and non-cognizable offences then the information will be dealt as cognizable offence.

Step to be taken if the police do not register FIR

According to the sub section 3 of section 154 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. If any person aggrieved by refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the FIR as referred in sub section 1 of the code, may send the substance of such information , in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned, who if satisfied that the information discloses the commission of cognizable offence , shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation made by any police officer subordinate to him.

Cases

In Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. , (2013)

The court orders that officer in charge of police station is bound to register an FIR, and within 24 hours of time span officer has to update the copy of FIR on online portal of the State where FIR can be shown.

“  PRIME LEGAL is a full- service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by:- Aamir Hussain

References:

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 OF 1974), UNIVERSAL’S BARE ACT.

The Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (2 of  1974), RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL.

0

Delhi High Court Sets Guidelines on Quashing FIRs and Responsible Mediation Practices

Blog , , , , ,

Title: Abhishek & Ors. v. The State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Decided on:  16th August, 2023

+  CRL.M.C. 5720/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTASHARMA 

Introduction

In a recent case, the Delhi High Court, while addressing a petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking the quashing of an FIR, highlighted the importance of responsible mediation practices in resolving serious offenses. The court observed that non-compoundable offenses cannot be resolved solely through monetary agreements and emphasized the need for upholding lawful and principled mediation practices.

Facts

The petitioners sought the quashing of an FIR filed against them for alleged offenses under Sections 308/34 of the IPC. The parties had settled the matter amicably and signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) for a monetary settlement of Rs. 40,000. It was revealed that Rs. 30,000 in cash was intended for the purpose of quashing the FIR.

Analysis

The court examined the principles of law related to quashing FIRs based on settlements as laid down in cases such as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and Parbhatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat. It differentiated between compounding offenses under Section 320 and quashing under Section 482 of the CrPC, emphasizing that the latter is discretionary and aimed at preventing process abuse while ensuring justice.

The court scrutinized the mediated settlement agreement, noting that the mediator had exceeded their jurisdiction by attempting to compound a non-compoundable offense. The agreement’s language suggested that serious offenses could be resolved through payments, which misled the parties involved. The court highlighted that quashing non-compoundable offenses is a discretionary decision that must adhere to established principles.

Held

The court held that serious offenses cannot be settled through monetary agreements alone. It stressed that the mediator’s role is not to compound non-compoundable offenses but to facilitate lawful and responsible mediation practices. While the court decided to quash the FIR based on unique circumstances, it imposed costs on the petitioners for misinterpreting the agreement.

The court laid down guidelines for mediators, emphasizing the importance of clarity in mediated settlement agreements. It directed mediators to specify that quashing of FIRs for non-compoundable offenses is at the court’s discretion and depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. The court urged mediators to ensure that parties understand the legal consequences and enforceability of agreements.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s ruling underscores the significance of responsible mediation practices and the proper interpretation of mediated settlement agreements. The judgment establishes that serious offenses cannot be resolved through monetary agreements and encourages mediators to uphold lawful principles while facilitating settlements.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Clicke here to view judgement

0

Filing of a FIR or FIRs by itself cannot be connected to a violation of maintaining public order : Gujarat High court

Blog ,

TITLE:  Ghanshyam Derubhai Budhelia v State of Gujarat

Decided On-: August 11, 2023

12589 of 2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. A.S Supehia and Mr. M.R Mengdey

INTRODUCTION-  

The current petition challenges a detention order that was issued on passed by the respondent – the detaining authority – while acting within the scope of the authority granted to it by section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985

FACTS OF THE CASE

The order of detention challenged in this petition deserves to be quashed and overturned on the grounds that the filing of the three FIRs for violations of Sections 65(A)(E), 81, and 116(b), Sections 65(A)(E), 116(b), 81, and 98(2) of the Prohibition Act, and Sections 65(A)(E), 81, 83, 116(b), knowledgeable attorney for the petitioner further argued that any illegal activity that is likely to be committed or is alleged to have been committed cannot be connected to or have anything to do with maintaining public order; at most, it can be considered a violation of law and order. In addition, other than witness statements and the filing of the aforementioned FIRs, there is no other pertinent or convincing evidence linking the alleged anti-social behaviour of the detainee to a breach of public order.

The knowledgeable advocate further argued that it is not possible to draw a conclusion from the case’s facts that the detainee’s involvement in criminal cases had a detrimental effect on society’s social fabric and ultimately posed a threat to people’s ability to continue living their regular, everyday lives or that the detainee’s filing of criminal cases had completely upended and rendered dysfunctional the social system as a whole.

 COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

AGP For the respondent The detention order was legitimately issued by the detaining authority in light of the facts of the case, and this Co. should uphold it. The State defended the detention order issued by the authority and claimed that the detenu is habitually engaging in the activity as described in Section 2(b) of the Act based on the information and evidence that were amassed during the course of the investigation and provided to the detenu.

Primarily, it is determined that the subjective satisfaction reached by the detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid, and in accordance with law, inasmuch as the offences alleged in the FIR/s cannot have any bearing on the public order as required under the Act and other relevant penal laws are sufficient enough to take care of the given circumstances, it cannot be said that the accusations made against the detenu are relevant to bringing them within the purview of section 2(b) of the Act.

In those circumstances, it cannot be said that the detainee is a person who would fall within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act unless and until the material is there to make out a case that the person has become a threat & menace to the Society so as to disturb the whole tempo of the society and that all social apparatus goes in peril disturbing public order at the instance of such person. There is nothing in the record, aside from general statements, that indicates the detainee is acting in a way that could endanger the peace of the community.

 simple filing of a FIR or FIRs by itself cannot be connected to a violation of maintaining public order, the authority cannot pursue a remedy under the Act, and no other pertinent and convincing evidence exists for exercising authority under section 3 (1) of the Act.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-  Steffi Desousa

 

Click here to view judgement

0

In A Rare Tiebreaker, Allahabad High Court Grants Interim Protection To Indiabulls Officers In FIRs By Shipra Group

Blog , , ,

CASE TITLE: Reena Bagga and Another vs. State of UP and 2 Others [Criminal MISC. Writ Petition No. – 11837/2023] and Himri Estate Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Others v. State of UP and 2 Others [Criminal MISC. Writ Petition No. – 11838/2023]

DECIDED ON: 08.08.2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Samit Gopal, J.

INTRODUCTION

Resolving divergent opinions concerning the suspension of the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the Director of Shipra Estate against officials of Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. concerning disagreements related to a loan facility they had utilized, the Allahabad High Court has determined that without affording time for the Advocate General and the complainant’s legal representative to seek guidance, it is an appropriate situation to offer provisional safeguard.

Justice Samit Gopal, who was assigned the case as the third judge following a division in the bench of Justices Vivek Kumar Birla and Rajendra Kumar-IV, has ruled in favor of the officers of IHFL.

FACTS

The officers of IHFL expressed their discontent with the proliferation of legal actions stemming from a solitary loan transaction. Justice Kumar declined to grant immediate relief, citing the hasty progression of the matter and the lack of time afforded to the Additional Government Advocate (AGA) to gather guidance. He opined that the appropriate course was to allow the AGA the necessary time for instruction before delivering a consequential verdict that might adversely impact the opposing party.

On the contrary, Justice Birla supported the interim protection for the petitioners, drawing on the precedent set by Gagan Banga vs. Samit Mandal & another (2023). In this case, similar FIRs were under consideration, and the Supreme Court had granted protection to the financial institution and its officers.

The case was elevated to the Chief Justice’s attention, who subsequently delegated it to a third judge to solicit an opinion.

Currently, Justice Gopal has aligned with Justice Birla’s perspective, expressing:

“After reviewing the Supreme Court’s ruling in the matter of Gagan Banga vs. Samit Mandal & another: Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 774 of 2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 2022, along with the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10893 of 2023 (Neeraj Tyagi and another vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), and considering the nature of the incident pertaining to financial institutions or money lenders pursuing recovery actions for their legitimate debts, with the proceedings adhering to the same trajectory, it is a suitable scenario to extend interim protection to the petitioners.”

In light of Shipra Group’s failure to fulfill its loan obligation to IHFL, Shipra Mall, an asset of the Shipra Group, was auctioned by IHFL. Himri Estate emerged as the successful bidder and acquired the mall.

Representative Mohit Singh of Shipra Group lodged several FIRs against IHFL officers and Himri Estate Pvt. Ltd. He alleged that the sale of Shipra Mall was illicit due to its undervaluation, resulting in substantial state revenue loss. Moreover, he claimed that specific officers were illicitly obtaining land in the vicinity, labeling them as land mafia from Delhi and NCR.

Conversely, the Additional Advocate General, representing the State, contended that given the potential sentences being less than 7 years, the petitioners needn’t fear arrest, thus negating the necessity for interim protection at this stage.

Additionally, the Informant’s legal counsel argued that the allegations against the petitioners extended beyond Shipra Mall to encompass illegally occupied lands held by the petitioners.

CASE ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The Court noted that the matter pertained to financial dealings involving loans, their non-repayment, and the subsequent auction of assets owned by the borrower.

In response to the argument put forth by the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioners are unlikely to be arrested and any proceedings would adhere to the directives of the Supreme Court as referenced by him, the Court clarified that the interim order’s scope extends beyond solely preventing the arrest of the petitioners; it encompasses other aspects as well, as per the Court’s determination.

The case is scheduled to be heard before the division bench on August 11, 2023.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Click to view the Judgement.

Written by- Mansi Malpani

 

 

 

 

 

0

Karnataka High Court Has Ruled That Section 78 Of The IT Act Requires An Investigation, Not Filing Of A FIR Unless It Is Conducted By An Officer of Certain Rank

Blog ,

Title: Neha Rafiq Chahchadi And State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102165 OF 2019

Date of Order: 03-07-2023

CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

INTRODUCTION

The Karnataka High Court has clarified that, according to Section 78 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, a Police Inspector or a higher-ranking officer is authorized to register an FIR for an offense punishable under Section 66E of the Act. However, the actual investigation must be carried out by an officer who holds the rank of Inspector of Police or higher.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner opposed the registration of the case, arguing that the offense is not cognizable. They claimed that the investigation agency should have utilized Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C instead. The petitioner contended that the Police Sub-Inspector lacked the authority to register the case, and thus sought the termination of further proceedings.

Regarding Section 66E (Punishment for violation of privacy), the court acknowledged the existence of a post on the complainant’s Instagram account that was not accessed by the complainant themselves. There was an allegation that the petitioner created a fake Instagram account in the complainant’s name and posted illegal and offensive content. The court emphasized the need for the case’s registration and investigation to uncover the truth about the incident. Since the offense under Section 66E carries a punishment of up to three years of imprisonment or a fine, or both, the court concluded that it is a cognizable offense.

Regarding Section 78 of the Act, the court clarified that there is no restriction on a police official below the rank of an Inspector of Police from registering a case. However, for the investigation, it is necessary that a person of at least the rank of an Inspector of Police or higher should conduct it.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

The court considering that no investigation has occurred due to the stay order granted in the current petition, the court concluded that the petitioner’s rights were not at risk, and there was no need for the court’s intervention under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the bench dismissed Neha Rafiq Chachad’s petition, which challenged the registration of a FIR against her for allegedly creating a fake Instagram account in the complainant’s name and sharing offensive content. The court instructed that the pending investigation should be carried out by the Inspector of the relevant Police Station.

Click here to view Judgement

1 2 3