F. I. R. – My Blog

F.I.R. not a detailed document — Non-mentioning of factum of dying declaration in the F.I.R. not to demolish the prosecution story. Abrar Hussain Shah v. The State 1992 SCR 294 (C)
F.I.R. is document the primary object of which is to put the investigating machinery in motion. Muhammad Aslam v. The State 1993 SCR 199 (A)
Registration of case on an ambiguous report — If report made to a police is ambiguous and merely based on a doubt, the officer concerned is not bound to register a case straight-away without probing into the matter — However if such report clearly indicates the commission of cognizable offence, the police officer cannot refuse to register a case on the ground that first he would satisfy himself about the truth of allegations made and then register a case; in such an eventuality he is bound to register a case forthwith. M. Rasheed Rathore v. S.H.O. City Police 1996 SCR 107 (A)
The finding of the High Court that deceased died as a result of heart failure and not due to negligence of any doctor or other hospital staff annulled — The High Court should have disposed of the writ petition in view of the averments made in the application and should not have embarked upon the enquiry with regard to the cause of death of the deceased in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed. Muhammad Rasheed Rathore v. S.H.O. City Police 1996 SCR 107 (B)
Delay in F.I.R. — Delay per se is no ground for throwing out the case of the prosecution — A reasonable explanation furnished by the prosecution regarding the delay assumes a very little importance. Muhammad Ramzan v. The State 1996 SCR 336 (A)
Delay — Delay in absence of any allegation of substitution or concoction is not important. Shabbir Ahmad v. The State and another 1997 SCR 206 (C)
F.I.R. — Salient features of — Counter version — Accused can use the counter version for their defence during the trial — They cannot be deprived of this benefit. Nazir Ahmad Khan & 3 others v. State 1998 SCR 95 (D)
The investigation must follow F.I.R. — Registration of a case after preliminary investigation is not only illegal but it creates serious doubts — The Police Officer in the present case received information that parties are fighting — He rushed to the place of occurrence — He recorded the statement of complaint and sent the same to the Police Station for registration of case — No investigation was conducted — A prosecution case cannot be thrown merely on the ground that F.I.R. was recorded after preliminary investigation — However, it is a serious irregularity which creates doubt — It would not vanish the sanctity attached to section 154 Cr.P.C. Liaqat Ali & 2 others v. Raja Shahid Nawaz & 2 others 2006 SCR 365 (F)
Objection raised that occurrence took place at 12.15 a.m. at night and F.I.R. was registered at 5 a.m. after a delay of 5 hours — Delay is not explained — F.I.R. has no evidentiary value — F.I.R. was registered on a written application — No one was nominated in the application — Complainant only stated that 4 masked persons armed with lethal weapons entered his house — He gave identification about their physique — Held: If the complainant had nominated convict-appellants in F.I.R. then argument of delay was available to defence counsel and could be argued that during delayed period the prosecution remained busy in fabricating the case against convict-appellant — Held further: F.I.R. is only an information of offence on the basis of which police started investigation — Argument has no force and repelled. Qamar Shehzad & others v. The State 2010 SCR 113 (A)
Objection raised that in F.I.R. three persons were nominated as witnesses of occurrence — Prosecution has produced one witness in the Court while two were left over and not produced in the Court. — They were important witnesses their non-production is indicative of the fact that they were not ready to corroborate the prosecution version — Doubt arises that appellants are innocent — Held: If a material witness is not produced in the Court and prosecution withheld him without any explanation then the Court is justified to draw inference against the prosecution that witness was not ready to support the prosecution version — Held: In the instant case the witnesses were not material witnesses and their non-production does not affect the prosecution case in any manner — Argument repelled. Qamar Shehzad & 3 others v. The State 2010 SCR 113 (B)
The FIR is a document on the basis of which the police machinery is activated and sent in motion for investigation. Held: It is not necessary that the FIR shall contain minor details. Ghulam Rasool & another v. The State and another 2011 SCR 324 (D)
No FIR can be lodged to give protection to an illegal encroachment over the land of a true owner. Muhammad Ismaeel Khan v. Sajaad Hussain & 14 others 2014 SCR 442 (D)
Offence of ‘Zina’ — contention that FIR was lodged after a delay of more than 9 and a half an hour which shows, the convict-appellant was implicated in the occurrence deliberately — Held: although the delay plays a very important role in the criminal cases, however, in the case of ‘Zina,’ the same cannot be treated as fatal. M. Rafique v. Aurangzeb & another 2015 SCR 974 (A)
Object of — The F.I.R is not a substantive piece of evidence and the object of F.I.R is only to bring the law into motion. Ghazanfar Ali v. The State & another 2015 SCR 1042 (A) Karam Dad vs. Javed & others criminal appeal No. 25 of 2011 decided on 23.2.2015 rel.
Delay of five hours — distance of Police Station from place of occurrence was 1 K.M. — one can reach there within half an hour — explanation offered by the prosecution in this regard is not convincing in nature — Held: in such like situation, the delay is always fatal for the prosecution. Liaquat Hussain v. The State & another 2015 SCR 1544 (A&E)
— FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and the main object of the same is to bring the law into motion. Abdul Qayyum & others v. The State & others 2019 SCR 105 (C)
—quashment of—offences—under sections 10, 16 and 19 ZHA, 14 EHA & 364 (A), APC—writ for quashment of FIR–after obtaining the exparte decree of dissolution of marriage, she contracted second marriage—she did not own the exparte decree of dissolution of marriage rather she appeared before the police and got recorded her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Held: that some controversial facts regarding genuineness of the Nikah are involved in the case which are liable to be resolved by the appropriate forum after recording the evidence. Further held that the resolution of such like controversial questions cannot be made in the writ petition. In presence of alternate remedy, the writ petition was not maintainable. Further held that an FIR which is based on mala fide, of-course can be quashed but no such eventuality is available in the case in hand, therefore, the police cannot be stopped from investigating the matter. Arsalan Raja & 5 others V. The State & 3 others 2020 SCR 336 (A)
—S. 377 Penal Code—AJK Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985, S. 12—sodomy—delay in filing FIR, in circumstances, was natural—the occurrence—took place—in Madrassa—which was reported to local police—after 5 days—the contention of the convict—that delay in this case is not condonable because the complainant has consumed sufficient time in concoction of a false case, hence, the delay cannot be lightly ignored, is devoid of any force. The victim in this case is the student of the convict and no reason has been listed as to why the case has been made against the convict. Even no motive has been alleged for false implication of the convict, therefore, the delay in lodging the FIR in such case is not fatal. Imran Akhtar v. The State & another 2020 SCR 340 (A) 2012 CrLJ 1200 rel
—section 377 Penal Code—AJK Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985, S. 12—sodomy—delay in filing FIR—it may be stated that where prestige of a family is involved, FIR cannot be lodged by a teenager victim without consultation of his father or other close relative, therefore, no benefit can be given to the convict on the basis of delay in lodging the FIR. Imran Akhtar v. The State & another 2020 SCR 340 (B)
— FIR is just an information—objection bring the law into motion—mere on the sole ground of non-appearance of the complainant before the Court, the whole case of prosecution cannot be declared doubtful. Waqas Abid v. Sajid Hussain & 3 others 2020 SCR 520 (A)
—delay in lodging F.I.R.—Contention: F.I.R. has been lodged with unexplained delay, the same is fatal for the prosecution case—Held: the delay had properly, been explained and keeping in view the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the prosecution has consumed time for concocting any case against the convict-appellant or the co-accused—contention devoid of any force in circumstances Nusrat Jan v. The State & another 2020 SCR 630 (G)
—FIR is not a detailed document wherein, each and every information is to be mentioned, rather it is a tool to put the law in action—it is the investigating Officer who has to investigate the matter, bring out the real facts and collect the material relating to commission of alleged offence. Syed Kamran Hussain v. State & another 2022 SCR 365 (H)
— delay — offence of sodomy. See Aftab Ali versus The State & another 2023 SCR 1069 (B)
— delay — about 6 hours delayed FIR — injured was taken to military hospital (MDS), where he succumbed to injuries — usually, civilians are not allowed to make frequent visits to an army hospital, thus the delay in lodging FIR by the complainant at the death of victim, is not fatal. Imran & others vs The State & others 2024 SCR 155(C)