FALLACIES OF A DELAYED FIRST INFORMATION REPORT (FIR)

The law does not lay down a strict limitation or timeline to lodge an FIR, however an inordinate delay of FIR without any plausible reasons and sufficient causes would be very prejudicial towards the outcome of the case.

A belated FIR that involves grave offence ought to be lodged as soon as instances or dispute arise, but does the law permit the validity of a delayed FIR?

Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence or incident by the informant paves a path towards the credibility of the incident and in case of any inordinate delay to report the same, a sufficient and valid reason explaining the delay would not make the complainant’s case improbable but failure to provide such sufficient reasons may lead to a presumption that the incident never happened or was an after thought.

The Supreme Court in Sahib Singh v. State of Haryana (1997) 7 SCC 231 held that ‘deliberate delay in lodging the complaint is always fatal’

Reiterating the same, Chauhan J while deciding an appeal that failed to quash a delayed FIR lodged after 15 years following the out come of a civil suit in Kishan Singh (dead) through LRS vs Gurpal Singh & Ors (2010) 8 SCC 775. observed that where there is a delay in lodging of FIR especially after a civil litigation, with any plausible explanation, the FIR ought to be quashed as it amounts to an abuse of the process of the law. criminal proceedings ought not to be generated into a weapon of harassment and prosecution. Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to vent their frustrations out of personal grudge by cheaply invoking the criminal court.

The Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Sharma and Ors vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. (2016) 9 SCC 1 opined that a belated FIR is a creature of afterthought with embellishment. It is not only fatal but also uncovers a colored version of exaggerated story. A delayed FIR without any plausible reasons raises a doubt of truthfulness of allegations made and is an abuse of the process of the law. (relied on Jai prakash singh v. State of Bihar (2012) 4 SCC 379)

A Frivolous FIR or Delayed FIR can be quashed by the High Court excising its jurisdiction under 482 CRPC(528 BNSS, 2023).

Although the court can foresee the myriad ways of criminal cases lodged but it can positively invoke its jurisdiction by weighing in on the facts and circumstances of each case. Carving out the lapses, whether a cognizable case is constituted or not, the absurdity of the FIR, abuse of process and the conduct of the party

In  G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636 it was held that: “Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction the High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

The supreme court in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 has laid down certain categories with illustrations wherein the power to quash could be exercised by the court either to prevent abuse of the process of law or to do complete justice. The categories are:

1. Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

2. Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6. Where there is an express legal bar en-grafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

Thus, false and frivolous FIR, especially if delayed is an abuse of process of the law. In addition litigants should avoid giving civil disputes criminal cloaks and knock the door of the courts, for the law is very well settled with respect thereto and would only reciprocate their malicious conduct leading to hefty punishments/costs.