Registration of a Criminal Case

Section 154

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Information in cognizable cases

Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer incharge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant, and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid shall be signed by the person giving it, arid the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the Provincial Government may prescribe in this behalf.

Court Decisions

Information in cognizable cases-Every information relating to commission of a cognizable offence is to be reduced to writing as an F.I.R and then an opinion is to be formed subsequently during the investigation regarding the correctness or falsity of such information. PLD 2003 Lah. 228

Words “every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence” appearing in S. 154, Cr.P.C pertain only to the information so supplied and do not pertain to actual commission of a cognizable offence – Information supplied should be about an alleged commission of a cognizable offence irrespective of the fact whether such information is ultimately proved to be about an alleged commission of a cognizable offence irrespective of the fact whether such information is ultimately proved to be correct or not and also whether ultimately such an offence is found to have been actually committed or not-Station House Officer at such a stage is to be satisfied only to the extent that the information is in respect of an offence which is cognizable. PLD 2003 Lah. 228

First Information report-No requirement at the time of registration of the case to give a hearing to the accused named in the complaint – Accused cannot claim an opportunity of hearing before registration of F.I.R against him or before passage of an order in that regard by a Court. PLD 2003 Lah. 228

Investigation into cognizable case-procedure-Incharge of a police station upon receipt of information relating to commission of a cognizable offence orally or in writing is required to incorporate the same in a prescribed book and S. 156, Cr.P.C postulates that the officer Incharge of police Station may, without the order of the Magistrate, Investigate any cognizable offence-Investigation, thus, can commence after the registration of the F.I.R – Object of investigation is collection of evidence. PLD 2003 Kar. 309

Second F.I.R-In the multifaceted versions, especially when the first reported version is denied, the latter version can be taken into consideration through its registration to fix the responsibility upon the informant. 2004 P Cr. L J 470

Registration of a second F.I.R by the police is not barred by any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure-Propriety, however, demands that there should be only one first information report to move the police, but the different course can only be adopted in exceptional circumstances by order of the superior courts. 2004 P Cr. L J 470

Ss. 154 & 156-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199-Constitutional petition-Quashing of F.I.R during investigation tantamount to throttling the investigation, which is not permissible in law. PLD 2003 Kar. 309

FIR-Non-registration of-Appellant obtaining death certificate from the hospital for claiming, pension on his behalf-No cause of death mentioned in the relevant column of the certificate-Appellant lodging complaint with the City Police Station alleging that his father had died as at result of negligence of concerned doctors and staff of CMH-But the same was not done-The application given by the appellant for registration of a case did not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence-Held that: Under such circumstances the SHO concerned was justified to make a preliminary inquiry as to whether the death of the deceased was the result of culpable act or commission and thus a cognizable offence was committed-Further held: That if the report made to a police officer is ambiguous and merely based on doubt the officer concerned is not bound to register a case straightaway without probing into the matter-If however, any such report clearly indicated the commission of a cognizable offence the police officer cannot refuse to register a case on the ground that first he would satisfy himself about the truth of the allegations made and then register a case-That the finding of the High Court that the deceased had died of heart failure and not due to the negligence of any doctor or other hospital staff were not necessary to the disposal of the writ petition – The same annulled-Appeal being without force the same dismissed. PSC (Crl.) 1996 SC (AJ&K) 571

When information, is received by a police officer incharge of a police station regarding commission of a cognizable offence the allegations must be found by him to be prima fade correct before an F.I.R. is registered-But when allegations are made, which without making an elaborate investigation into them are found hard to believe-Provisions of Section 154 Cr. P. C. may not be attracted in such case-Therefore, the question, whether discretion must be exercised in favour of party, in a given case, and directions must be given to a police officer to register a F.I.R. would depend upon the circumstances of each case. KLR 1997 Cr. C. (Kar.)707

Petitioner contended that it were actually the respondents who had committed the aggression – If was obligatory upon the police to register the case because a second FIR was not a bar if a new case was made out or allegations of a cognizable case were leveled-Held that: It is now a settled proposition of law that information could be laid one after the other to be recorded as FIRs if these disclosed separate cognizable offences-The second or later not being the mere amplification of the first but the disclosure of other criminal activities-Further held: That although the recording of a second FIR or a direction to that effect depended upon the circumstances of each case but counter cases are often recorded and tried-The matter to be seen in the context of the totality of the circumstances and the allegations-Petition allowed-SHO directed to record FIR. KLR 1994 Cr. C. 58

Harassment abduction of children by her previous husband with the help of police-Request for registration of case against them” Held: The petitioner may seek remedy for recovery or custody of the children under Section 25 of the Guardian & Wards Act if she is so advised. KLR 1994 Cr. C. 382

Alleged theft-Registration of FIR-Petition for-Held that: It is a common complaint these days that Police Officers through the transgression of their authority become negligent and violate the law by not registering the criminal cases with respect to cognizable offences-And instant case was of that nature-Further held: That the police were under obligation to register the case u/Section 154 Cr. P. C. 1998 PLR (Lah) 77

Counter version-F.I.R. registration of – The police were under bounden duty to have registered the counter version of the petitioner through a separate F.I.R.-Then it w,-.j the duty of the SSP to conduct impartial and honest investigation through an independent police officer of the second version as was directed by the High Court-Petition allowed, 1998 PLR (Qta.) 39

Two versions of one occurrence-Son of the petitioner was murdered by the police and the occurrence was shown as police encounter-FIR was registered on the version of police, whereas the version given by the petitioner was totally on different premises-Police did not register a separate FIR on the version of the petitioner – Validity – Correctness of any versions could not be ascertained unless the case of the petitioner was registered, both the cases were investigated together and thereafter, report or reports wee submitted by the Investigating Agency-Where both the versions were not placed before the Court, no proper adjudication of the respective contentions could be made to submit Challan in one case and to ignore the version given in other case-Such course was not at all conductive to the interest of justice – Police was directed by High Court to register FIR on the information given by the petitioner. 2000 P. Cr. L. J. 320

Contents : FIR need not to contain details of occurrence-Omission in FIR of fact that informant had informed any body of village about occurrence before she had left for police station to lodge FIR-Held: It was an omission of details and not contradiction-Held further: That informant who witnessed murder of her husband and brother-in-law must have been dazed and could not be expected to gave all details. PSC 1982 SC (Ind)1284

FIR, nature and recording of-FIR is simply an information for commission of an offence to move the concerned agency-Mot essential for complaint to give all details regarding commission of offence in. FIR. 2000 P. Cr. L. J. 602

Duty of incharge of police station– Requirement of law is that Police Officer has to record FIR mandatory of a cognizable case under S. 154, Cr. P. C. but where it is a non-cognizable case then substance of such information is to be entered in the relevant register but in each case refusal to register case is out of question-Incharge of police station is duty bound and it is statutory obligation of such Officer that on receipt of information whether orally or in writing he has to record the same in the book prescribed for such purpose and no option or discretion is left with the Officer in that regard. 2000 P. Cr. L. J. 320

Opinion of Inquiry Officer – Registration of criminal case is independent right of aggrieved person Such person can report the matter to incharge of concerned police station, who is bound under S.154, Cr. P. C. to record his report and conduct investigation in accordance with law – Opinion qua the cause of death is not binding on police officer holding investigation under Chap. XIV, Cr. P. C. or Court of law holding trial of accused person – Inquiry report may be relied upon by prosecution or defence and may be given due weight if the conclusions arrived at by the Magistrate are consistent with the evidence brought on record – During investigation or trial, police officer or Court of law, as the case may be, can legitimately arrive at a contrary finding in the light of evidence brought on record, PLD 2002 Lah.78

1972 P. Cr. L. J. 626 and 1989 P. Cr. L. J. 1826 ref.

Private complaint not barred – Apart from registration of criminal case, it is also open to aggrieved person to file private complaint – Exoneration of accused in inquiry under S.176, Cr. P. C. does not constitute bar even to a private complaint which is another mode of bringing culprits for trial before Court of competent jurisdiction. PLD 2002 Lah.78 1986 MLD 1196 ref.

Evidentary value of FIR – It is admitted principle of law that the FIR is not the substantive piece of evidence-The purpose of such report is to put criminal law into motion at the earliest-It’ can be used by defence for confrontation with the statement on oath by the maker at the time of trial-Final inference is to be drawn ,by comparing the FIR with the rest of the relevant evidence in that sequence-In this connection the Court is to consider the type and nature of the discrepancy-It it is so material that it demolishes the entire prosecution story then its credit must go to the defence but if it is of minor type then it has to be ignored in the light of the rest of the relevant evidence. KLR 1986 Cr. C. 129

Police Order (22 of 2002), Petitioners, dissatisfied with the investigation being conducted by the local police seeking, through Constitutional petitions, transfer of investigation alleging harassment being caused by police to them and praying for issuance of directions to local police for registration of criminal case against a number of persons – Adjudication of such petitions – Procedure – Registration of criminal case, transfer of investigation from one investigating officer to another or issuance of a restraint order against the police officer not to cause harassment to a citizen, essentially are administrative functions which are to be carried out by the police functionaries concerned or higher police officers in exercise of powers under S.551, Cr. P. C. and supervisory powers vesting in them under Police Rules, 1934 or Police Order, 2002 – District Nazim has also the power to issue necessary direction to police to carry out its functions in accordance with provisions of the Police Order, 2002 – Directions which have been sought for by the petitioners, in the present case, through constitutional petitions essentially relate to administrative duties to be performed by the public functionaries and adjudication of rights in the conventional sense of the term by a superior Court is not required or involved in the process – High Court being the apex Court under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 has plenary powers on administrative and adjudicatory side to oversee the functioning of all public functionaries who are required to exercise any power or to perform any function under provisions of Cr. P. C. to ensure strict enforcement of and compliance with various provisions of law relating to registration of cases, investigation thereof and ancillary matters – High Court is fully empowered to issue an appropriate direction to effectuate the mandate and writ of law Subordinate functionaries can also be called upon to perform such functions as the High Court might require Sessions Judges, Additional Sessions Judges and Magistrates and police/public functionaries can be deputed by High Court to ensure proper administration of justice Sessions Judges, Additional Sessions Judges and the Magistrates, even otherwise, are empowered under S.22-A, Cr. P. C. and obliged under S.22-B. Cr. P. C. to carry out their functions with regard to correct working of police in accordance with law – Registration and proper investigation of criminal case can be directed by the Sessions Judges, Additional Sessions Judges and the Magistrates Sessions Judges, Additional Sessions Judges and Magistrates can competently call upon the police functionaries to desist from causing harassment to people and to remain within the limits of law Sessions Judges, Additional Sessions Judges and Magistrates have ample power in this regard and they have to exercise the same in aid of justice and to alleviate the miseries of the common man – Lower judiciary, which is vested with enough statutory powers in this regard, has to play a more dynamic role in the criminal justice system, and for removal of any difficulties, any order passed by the Sessions Judges, Additional Sessions Judges in exercise of powers under S.22-A & 22-B, ,Cr. P. C. pursuant to directions given by the High Court, would have full sanction of the plenary powers of the High Court and police would be under an obligation to obey the orders passed by die Sessions Judges, Additional Sessions Judges or the Magistrates – Directions, issuance of which have been sought for through the constitutional petitions, in the present case, are essentially administrative in nature, and do not require adjudication by High Court and only such intervention which is forensic in nature, is required which can be resorted to in chamber by the Judges of the High Court – Office of the High Court has been directed to place similar petitions before the Judges in chamber only and there is no requirement to place the matter before the Judges in Court – Judge of the High Court, in an appropriate case, keeping in view facts and circumstances, may hear the case in open court and hearing of the counsel at great length in chamber would not be necessary which is dispensed with from now on High Court, while, disposing of the constitutional petitions directed the petitioners in the present case, to produce a copy of the petition as well as the order of the High Court (in the present case) before the Sessions Judge of the District who shall look into the grievance of the petitioner, summon the local Station House Officer and issue necessary directions to him with regard to registration of case or for holding an inquiry under section 157, Cr. P. C. or for carrying out proper investigation of the case Sessions Judge can entrust the matter to any Additional Sessions Judge or Judicial Ilaqa Magistrate of the police station concerned to do the needful, as well – Formal inquiry and preparation of record is not required – If needed, an order in writing can be given to the police Similarly if the Sessions Judge is satisfied about grievance of the petitioner with regard to defective, evasive or less than honest investigation, he shall have the power to transfer investigation of the case to any other police officer within the District – Directions in this regard can be given to the District Police Officer to transfer the investigation Sessions Judge, the Additional Sessions Judge or the Magistrate would also call upon the respondent police officer to remain within the limits of law and strictly abide by the law and procedure and not to cause any harassment to any of the petitioners (or any citizen) or other members of their families – Provisions of the Police Order, 2002 should also be kept in view while exercising powers in this regard – If aggrieved person approaches the Sessions Judge with any grievance of similar kind the Sessions Judge, Additional Session Judge, or Magistrate shall issue necessary directions to police even in the absence of any direction from the High Court – District Nazim can also be advised to come to the aid of aggrieved party and to exercise powers under Art. 35 of the Police Order, 2002 – In case the Sessions Judge, the Additional Sessions Judge or the Judicial Magistrate felt that they, keeping in view the nature of the controversy between the parties, are unable to give requisite relief to the petitioner before them, they shall make a reference to the High Court so that effective and speedy relief is given to the citizens and necessary penal action is taken against the delinquent police functionary – Copy of the order of the High Court in the present case, has been ordered to be remitted to Additional Registrars of each of the Bench of High Court for being placed before the Senior Judges, so that a uniform policy is followed at the Principal Seat as well as the Benches – Copies of the order shall also be sent to all the Sessions Judges of the Province for information and due compliance. PLD 2002 Lah.619

Constitutional petition Setting the criminal law into motion – Modes – Discretionary powers, exercise of – Two modes had been provided in the Criminal Procedure Code – In order to set the criminal law into motion one by way of lodging of report with the police under S.154. Cr. P. C. in respect of commission of cognisable offence and other by filing of a complaint before a Magistrate as provided by S.190, Cr. P. C. – Requirement of law was that Police Officer had to record the F.I.R. of a cognisable offence under S.154, Cr. P. C. ., but if it was a non-cognisable case then substance of such information was to be entered in the relevant register and in each case the refusal was out of question – Incharge of a police station was duty-bound and it was his statutory obligation that on receipt of information whether orally or writing, he had to record the same in the book prescribed for that purpose and no option or discretion was left with him in that regard – Fact that the petitioner/complainant had an alternative remedy of filing a private complaint would not take away the discretion of the High Court and deter the Court from giving directions to the police to record F.I.R. in an appropriate case – Discretionary powers must be exercised in good faith having regard to all relevant considerations and it should be exercised justly, fairly and reasonably. 2002 MLD 280

F.I.R., registration of – Enquiry conducted by Magistrate – Effect – Where death was caused in police custody, mere fact that enquiry was conducted by Magistrate regarding cause of death, would not bar registration of criminal case under S. 154, Cr. P. C. PLD 2002 Lah.78

Registration of a criminal case – Petitioner; who was mother of the deceased had charged the respondents/police officials for murder of her son when he was in police custody, whereas the version of the respondents was that the deceased died in police encounter and case had been registered in that respect – Police was not possessed with the right to murder or kill any citizen accused of any offence only for the reason that such person was involved in a criminal case and was keeping a previous bad record – Person keeping bad record could be innocent in the case registered against him because under the law presumption of innocence would continue until he was proved guilty – If the police machinery would take law in its hands it was to be dealt with in the same manner as the ordinary citizens were dealt with – Nobody could be allowed to take law into his hands and it was the duty of the Courts to curb the highhandedness strictly – In view of totally different versions of the parties regarding the occurrence, it could not be said as to which version was correct and the truth could be ascertained only if the case of the petitioner was registered and both the cases were investigated together – Unless both the versions were placed before the Court, no proper adjudication of the respective contentions could be made – To Submit Challan in one case and to ignore the other version was not at all conducive to the interest of justice – High Court accepting Constitutional petition ordered registration of case against the respondents in accordance with S. 154, Cr. P. C. for the murder of the son of the petitioner and that investigation in case should be entrusted to an experienced and honest police official of the Crime Branch. 2002 MLD 280

Death in police custody – -Judicial inquiry exonerating accused persons from charge of murder of the person who died in police custody – Complainant and eye-witnesses had seen police giving Chhitter blows on buttocks of the deceased – Effect – Cause of death was relevant qua the offence under S.302, P.P.C but it had no bearing qua other offences of illegal arrest and confinement of deceased and injuries caused to him during police custody – Criminal case, in the present case ought to have been registered by police under the relevant provisions of Penal Code, 1860, including Ss. 302 & 342, P.P.C. – High Court directed Senior Superintendent of Police to register criminal case against accused police officials – Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances. PLD 2002 Lah.78

F.I.R,s Probative value – F.I.R itself is not a substantive piece of evidence unless its contents are affirmed on oath and subjected to the test of cross-examination – F.I.R, in view of the provisions of Arts. 140 & 153 of the Qanun-eShahadat, 1984, is a previous statement which can be used for the purpose of contradicting and corroborating its maker So long as F.I.R. is not proved in accordance with the law, it is as such no evidence and, therefore, cannot be taken as a proof of anything slated therein, PLD 2001 Pesh. 132

The F.I.R. is not a substantive piece evidence and no conviction can be based on the contents of a F.I.R. alone; its significance, however, for the purpose of seeking corroboration or contradictions cannot be denied. In the present case admittedly the facts were remarkably peculiar because of allegations against Prime Minister of the country, and other personalities holding top slots while the victim of offence was the Chief of Army Staff and during the incident a number of high officials had taken part in diversion of the plane from its scheduled course and closing of the runway while on the other hand Army Generals had promptly moved in and intercepted the action being taken by Civil Aviation Authority officials. Although the story came into picture in national press immediately, yet a fact‑finding probe was carried out and only then the F.I.R. was lodged. Even after such probe the names of all the accused could not be incorporated in the F.I.R. That aspect of the case, on the contrary, fortifies the argument that the prosecution did not gain anything from the delay in lodging the F.I.R. However, there was an explanation on the part of the prosecution in the F.I.R. itself which in the circumstances of the case could be treated as a reasonable explanation. Nevertheless, the settled principle is that the contents of F.I.R. could not be taken as thumb rule for genuineness or otherwise of the prosecution story and that the liability of an accused person shall be decided on the basis of the evidence) on record. The prosecution in the present case had produced enormous evidence which was trustworthy and believable as such the delay in lodging of the F.I.R. was immaterial. P L D 2002 Karachi 152

Muhammad Gul v. The State 1970 SCMR 797; Riaz Ahmed v. The State PLD 1994 Leh. 485; Salar Khan v. Muhammad Ayub 1986 PCr.LJ 1482; Tahir Hussain v. The State 1992 PCr.LJ 478: Muhammad Gul’s case 1970 SCMR 797; Riaz Ahmed’s case PLD 1994 Lah. 485; Salar Khan’s case 1986 PCr.LJ 1482; 1978 SCMR 135; PLD 1978 SC 1 and 1979 SCMR 230 ref.

Criminal Procedure Code

Registration of third F.I.R. – Widows of the deceased were not satisfied with two previously registered F.I.Rs, as they had felt that said F.I.Rs. did not reflect the true facts – First F.I.R. was registered at the instance of a police officer who was suspected by the widows of being accused himself in the case Second F.I.R. was registered at the instance of a private servant of one of the widows who was still in police custody – Contention of widows that two F.I.Rs. registered by the police did not transpire true facts, was not unreasonable – Widows of the deceased filed Constitutional petition before High Court seeking direction to the police concerned to record another F.I.R. disclosing the true facts of the incident-High Court accepted petition and directed the police to record third F.I.R. as prayed for by the widows holding that no hard and fast rule was that another F.I.R. could not be registered in respect of different version given by the aggrieved party of the same occurrence – Validity – If information subsequently given to a police officer which disclosed a different offence, was also cognizable by the police, then unless it was mere amplification of the first version, it must be recorded by the Police – If true facts in respect of an occurrence were not reflected by the two earlier F.I.Rs. the refusal to record a genuine version of the same occurrence would not be justified – Alternate remedy though was provided to an aggrieved party under the law by way of lodging complaint, but mere fact that an alternate remedy had been provided for, could not debar the Court from giving direction to the police to record another F.I.R. in an appropriate case – High Court, in circumstances, had rightly directed to the police concerned to register a third F.I.R. at the behest of the widows of the deceased – Petitions for leave to appeal against judgment of High Court were dismissed. 2001 SCMR 1556

1983 SCMR 436 ref.

F.I.R., nature and function of – F.I.R. merely set in motion the criminal law and it could not be used as a substantive piece of evidence against any accused and even observation made in respect of the F.I.R. pertaining to the merits of the case which was yet to be tried, could not be used against the accused at the trial. 2001 SCMR 1556

Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Confession‑‑Confessional statement ordinarily should either be accepted or rejected as a whole where there is no other evidence, direct or circumstantial, to connect the accused with the crime, but in the presence of reliable, direct or circumstantial evidence Court is not bound to accept those portions of the accused’s statement which on face of prosecution evidence appear to be improbable or palpably absurd. 1995 M L D 1199

Registration of a Criminal Case

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!