[Section 154, Cr.P.C.]
No preliminary inquiry is permissible before registration of FIR. Legal machinery is set in motion only after registration of FIR. Refusal or negligence by a police officer to register FIR exposes him to attach u/S. 29 of Police Act 1861. SHO directed to register FIR and investigate the case. PLR 1998 Lah 214, Qazi Muhammad Javed v. S.S.P. Gujranwala, etc.
Promptly made FIR eliminates possibility of fabrication. (SC) 1975 SCMR 442. Khalil Ahmed.
FIR lodged promptly, P.S. 18 Kilometers away and FIR lodged within one hour of occurrence, held no time available to complainant to fabricate a false case against the accused/appellant. (DB) PLJ 1989 Cr.C. (Lah.) 403. Ghulam Razzaq.
FIR recorded within one hour of occurrence of murder, proves FIR as genuine document. It can safely be used for corroboration of its maker. (DB) NLR 1989 Cr. 424. Muhammad Ashraf etc.
Prompt FIR. FIR made within less than half an hour of the incident entirely eliminates the possibility of fabrication or false implication. (SC) PLD 1976 SC 53 Yaqoob Shah.
Promptly made FIR giving detailed account of the occurrence cannot be considered a fabrication. (SC) PLJ 1975 SC 170 Abdur Rashid v. Umaid Ali.
FIR promptly made rules out possibility of consultation to concoct a false case against the accused persons. (DB) 1975 P.Cr.LJ 44 Moharram etc. (DB) 1976 P.Cr.LJ 584. Abdullah.
Immediately made FIR eliminates all chances of concocting a false story. (SC) PLJ 1974 SC 134 Abdul Sattar v. M. Anwar (SC) 1972 SCMR 591 Mesan (DB) 1971 P.Cr.LJ 1187 Abdus Sattar.
FIR made with utmost expedition. The FIR even though lodged with utmost expedition cannot by that circumstance alone, acquired higher value in law as to its weight as a substantive piece of evidence or the correctness of the facts mentioned in it. PLD 1977 Kar. 235. Tariq.
Prompt FIR does not guarantee that innocent persons have not been implicated. Delay not always fatal. (DB) PLJ 1981 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 74. Haji Mir Aftab.
Promptitude only in lodging FIR is not enough where on analysis of evidence on record prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. (DB) PLJ 1990 Cr.C. (Kar.) 435 Muhammad Achar = NLR 1990 Cr. 282.
Delay or promptness in lodging FIR cannot in all cases lead to the inference that the case set up in FIR is necessarily true or false. However, it is a relevant circumstance to be considered. LJ 1990 Cr. C. (Kar.) 340 G ullan = NLR 1990 Cr. 525.
Inordinately delayed FIR has chances of adulteration of the true account which becomes very luminous. (DB) 1995 P.Cr.L.J. 459, Astam Khan.
Delay in lodging FIR. Complainant lodging FIR after spending one hour at the spot. Wasting of that much of time held not free from suspicion. Possibility of some suspicion about the identity of the accused not excluded. (DB) 1976 P.Cr.LJ 17 Raham Ali.
Delay explained. The delay was due to the injured being taken to the hospital, first, where doctor was not available. Injured taken to second hospital and FIR lodged afterwards is quite natural. Such a delay does not affect the prosecution case adversely. (SC) 1976 SCMR 135. Ismail etc.
FIR delayed and no explanation given for the delay. Presence of eye-witnesses at the spot doubtful. Recoveries doubtful. Accused acquitted. (DB) 1976 P.Cr.LJ 1122. Roshan Ali etc.
Delay in FIR. No explanation for belated FIR. Accused given benefit of doubt. (DB) 1969 P.Cr.LJ 551 Jhando.
Delay in FIR for a few hours in a case of Zina-bil-jabr where a girl of 12 is taken to hospital first, does not affect the prosecution case. PLJ 1995 FSC 118, Bali Khan.
FIR delayed in abduction case is of no consequence as honour of family is involved therefore people do not run to police but try to exhaust all other sources before going to police. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lah.) 61, Muhammad Sarwar.
FIR u/S. 302, 307, 148/149 PPC delayed by 3 hours and written at the complainant's house. No explanation for delay given in FIR, hence the inference is that the FIR was recorded after preliminary investigation and consultation and as such its authenticity was questionable. (D.B) PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Pesh) 1752, Mashal Khan etc.
2 hours delay in lodging FIR can be attributed to consultation, taking instructions and calculatedly preparing report keeping names of the accused open for roping in such persons whom ultimately prosecution may wish to implicate. Such unexplained delay creates doubts on the testimony of a witness. PLJ 1995 S.C.-1 Mehmood Ahmed etc. = 1995 SCMR 127.
3 hours' delay in FIR. Police Station 1« mile away from the spot. Delay of more than 3 hours in making FIR. Delay not explained. Held, the informant had plenty of time to think of a story. (DB) PLJ 1974 Cr.C. (Lah.) 469 Ghulam Muhammad. Also see PLD 1966 Lah. 383.
FIR got recorded after delay of 3« hours. Version of the appellant that FIR was lodged after consultation and deliberation and after start of investigation gets support from it. PLJ 1996 Kar 267, Noor Khan.
FIR delayed by  4 hours and recorded at the spot without explanation for the delay, viewed with great suspicion. (DB) NLR 1988 Cr. 221. Sher Zaman etc.
7« hours' delay in F.I.R.: F.I.R. lodged 7« hours after the occurrence at Police Station 19 miles away. Delay in lodging F.I.R. remaining unexplained. Such unexplained delay makes the investigation of the case doubtful. Conviction on such F.I.R. not maintained. (DB) PLJ 1973 Lah. 475. Mansab Khan.
Delay of 8 hours in lodging FIR is not fatal to prosecution case when complainant himself and 3 persons were injured, who were taken to hospital first for treatment. Intrinsic worth of statements of witnesses has to be considered. PLD 1992 S.C. 211, Mst. Shamim Akhtar v. Faiz Akhtar etc.
Eight hours' delay in F.I.R. provides sufficient time for deliberation and consultation when complainant gives no explanation for delay in F.I.R. and explains it during proceedings in Court. PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Lah.) 107.
Delay of 9/10 hours in lodging FIR  properly explained. Death sentence upheld. 1996 SCMR 1926, Nasar Ullah.
Delay of 10 hours in making F.I.R. Enough time for complainant to fabricate a story. Version in F.I.R. doubtful. (FC) 1982 FSC 246. Azmat Khan. PLJ 1982 FSC 44.
12 hours' delay in F.I.R. made the prosecution case doubtful. (DB) PLD 1963 Lah. 585 Kamir.
Delay of 16 hours in F.I.R. does not rule out the possibility that the F.I.R. was recorded after some investigation and deliberation. (DB) PLJ 1987 Cr.C. (Lah.) 424. Allah Bakhsh.
18 hours' delay in making F.I.R.  false implication cannot be ruled out. 1974  P.Cr.LJ 95 Ghulam Raza.
Delay of 19 hours in FIR made no difference when delay was satisfactorily explained in the FIR itself. NLR 1989 Cr. 588 Sahaba.
Delay of 26 hours in making FIR not explained leads to inference that the occurrence was unwitnessed. NLR 1989 Cr. 158 Khalid etc.
Delay of 2 days in lodging FIR not plausibly explained. Medical examination not dependable. Appellant acquitted for offence u/S. 377 PPC. 1996 SCMR 1910, Mehboob Iqbal.
2 days' delay not explained in making F.I.R. casts grave doubts on prosecution case. Appellants acquitted. 1978 P.Cr.LJ 766 Kali etc.
3 days' delay in making F.I.R. reasonable explanation given. Conviction upheld by Supreme Court. PLJ 1981 SC 519 Hamid Khan.
FIR lodged after 2 months of incident without explanation for delay, held, fatal to the prosecution case. NLR 1988 Cr. 92. Saadat Ali Khan.
Delay of 2« months in lodging complaint explained. Defence plea was found false. 2 Sub-Inspectors of Police, one ASI and 4 Constables punished on private complaint for offences u/ss. 325, 452, 148, 149 PPC. Appeal dismissed by Supreme Court. 1997 SCMR 632, Shafiq-ur-Rehman etc.
Delay of 9 months in lodging FIR u/S.10(2) of Zina Hudood Ord. The prosecutrix found to be consenting party. Held the conviction could not be maintained on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix without independent corroboration. 1994 SCMR 1218, Muhammad Aslam.
Delay in F.I.R. Murder at 3.15 p.m. post-mortem completed at 9.30 a.m. next day. F.I.R. made at 9.05 p.m. after post-mortem. Held, delay reflected on the truth of the prosecution story. (DB) NLR 1982 Cr. 165.
Delay in sending dead body to mortuary creates doubts about the identification of the culprits at the time of occurrence. Reasonable doubt arises that the time between the occurrence and the F.I.R. was spent in deliberation, consultation and preliminary investigation. No reliance could be placed on F.I.R. and inquest report in such circumstances. (DB) PLD 1985 Lah. 566 Zaman.
Dead body found after several days in jungle and report made after 4 days delay. Motive as well as extra-judicial confession disbelieved. Accused acquitted. (DB) 1979 P.Cr.LJ 460 Haji Ahmed etc.
Omission in inquest report of F.I.R. number indicated that F.I.R. had not been registered by the time inquest report was prepared. NLR 1987 Cr. 628 Abid Rahi.
Delay unexplained; Delay in making F.I.R. unexplained. Such delay throws considerable doubt on the genuineness of prosecution case. PLD 1986  Lah. 860 Muhammad Shafi.
Explanation for delayed FIR is not to be considered when such explanation is in the FIR only, as FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence. PLJ 1985 Cr.C. (Lah.) 76 Abdul Wahab etc.
Delay in FIR not explained; Presumption is that the FIR was deliberately delayed to gain time for consultation and deliberation. (DB) PLD 1976 Lah. 1403 Muhammad Farooq etc.
Unexplained delay in registration of FIR indicates that the eye-witnesses were procured and induced to be eye-witnesses. NLR 1989 Cr. 341. Muhammad Luqman.
Delay in making a complaint, and disappearance of the complainant at cross-examination. Conviction set aside. (FC) 1969 P.Cr.LJ 925 Ghias-ud-Din etc v. Crown.
Delay only a suspicious circumstance; Delay in making F.I.R. to the police is only a suspicious circumstance. It is no ground for rejecting evidence. AIR 1938 Lah. 714 Radha Kishan v. Emperor.
Delay in FIR of no consequence. Murder discovered after 24 hours. Police report made next day. No suspect named. 20 days later first informant expressed suspicion about the accused to notable of the area. Accused sent for who confessed to the notable. Conviction upheld. (SC) 1968 SCMR 339 Jogi.
Delay in FIR immaterial or the fact that it was not recorded at P.S. It would not affect the evidence if the witnesses whose presence was natural and they were not interested. 1987 SCMR 2009. Khushi Muhammad etc.
Delay of 15 months in making FIR is of no consequence when it was explained by convincing circumstances. Conviction maintained. NLR 1984 Cr. 703. Sher Ali Khan.
Delay of no consequence when there is no evidence of enmity, (SC) 1978 SCMR 136 Zar Bahadar PLJ 1978 SC 386.
Delay explained: The fact that the injured man was first taken to the hospital for treatment explains delay in making F.I.R. (SC) 1968 SCMR 425 Nur Ahmed. (SC) 1971 SCMR 362 Haji Ahmed.
Delay in FIR due to fear of the accused explanation held quite plausible. Prosecution case not weakened for delay. First informant a village woman. Police Station 12 miles away. Report made next day at noon. (SC) 1970 SCMR 603 Ghulzar etc.
Benefit for delay in FIR is to be given to the accused when the identity of accused is in doubt, or time is consumed to build up a story to rope in more persons. (DB) PLD 1969 Lah. 257 Muhammad Luqman.
Not false because of delay: Delay in making FIR does not make it necessarily false. Circumstances of the case are to be looked into. 1974 P.Cr.LJ Note 84 Fateh Muhammad etc. (SC) 1978 SCMR 136 Zar Bahadar.
Delay not necessarily fatal: Delay in making the FIR is not always fatal to the prosecution. The fact however is to be taken into consideration in assessing the evidence. 1976 P.Cr.LJ 40 Abbas Shah etc.
Registration of criminal case against public servant, u/Ss. 218, 468 and 47 PPC read with sections 6, 7 & 8 of Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance, Act of 1961. Case against Public Servant could not have been registered except under orders of the officers mentioned in Rule 8(2), direction of District Magistrate, for registration of case against petitioners was illegal, unlawful and nullity in the eyes of law. There is distinction between Sec. 154 Cr.P.C. and registration of a case regarding commission of a Scheduled Offence under Ordinance of 1961. PLJ 1997 Lah 48, Triq Latif Butt.
Mere filing of a civil suit does not bar registration of a criminal case and if criminal act has been committed and provisions of Sec. 195(1), Cr.P.C. ware also no bar for initiating criminal proceedings in respect of a document. PLJ 1998 Lah. 1101 Ashiq Hussain. PLD 1992 Lah. 178
Registration of FIR: Single judge directing petitioner to file a complaint while in intra-court appeal D.B. directing the registration of FIR. (DB) NLR 1981 Cr.155 Sheikh Naseem Ahmed.
High Court under no obligation to direct S.H.O. to register a case. Petitioner may initiate a complaint in court if so advised. 1979 SCMR 490 Muhammad Ijaz v. S.H.O.
Registration of FIR is a statutory obligation of an SHO in a cognizable case and no order from any senior officer required. PLJ 1983 Lah. 40. Tassadaq Hussain v. Inspector/SHO. NLR 1983 Cr.55.
Police bound to record FIR of a cognizable offence. Failure to record report punishable. 1974 P.Cr.LJ 579 Nazir Ahmed v. Khushi Muhammad etc. (FB) PLD 1972 Lah. 493 M. Anwar v. SHO.
SHO bound to record FIR when report of cognizable offence is made to him. Registration of FIR ordered. (DB) PLJ 1992 Pesh. 59, Haji Sardar Bahadar Khan Advocate v. D.I.G. Police etc.
Court can direct SHO to register the case on receipt of complaint without himself taking cognizance of the case. (DB) PLD 1998 Lah. 193, Allah Ditta Hamlani v. I.G. Police etc.
Registration of FIR is mandatory for the police officer u/S. 154 Cr.P.C. in a cognizable offence. 1993 SCMR (SAC) 550, Syed Saeed Muhammad Shah.
Petition for registration of FIR under clause (22) Letters Patent Lahore dismissed as not competent. Full Bench decision M. Anwar v. S.H.O. in which writ petition was entertained under clause 22 was not followed. NLR 1988 Cr. 401 Zahur Ahmed v. S.H.O. Also see NLR 1989 Cr. 283, Re: Letters Patent.
Registration of FIR under clause (22) Letters Patent, Lahore 1919. The learned judge directed the police to register the case after ordering preliminary inquiry. NLR 1989 Cr. 283. Letters Patent, in Re:
FIR cannot be registered by a Police Officer for violation of Sec. 144, Cr.P.C. unless complaint in writing is made by authority in terms of S. 195(1)(a), Cr.P.C. Proceedings being invalid quashed. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Kar) 722 Abdul Baqi, etc.
FIR registered by Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise) is not competent as the Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation is not a Police Station. Therefore, no FIR could be registered there. PLJ 1998 Lah. 1216 Muhammad Nawaz, etc.
Registration of case under a particular section by the police sought through a writ petition that the SHO be directed to register a case u/S. 307, PPC instead of section 324, PPC Held, the remedy is available under Cr.PC and not writ petition. NLR 1984 Cr. 443. Fahim Akhtar v. I.G. Police Sindh.
Registration of a case and investigation: Police cannot refuse to register a case on the ground that they consider the version to be false. S.H.O. must in cognizable case register and investigate it. PLD 1975 Lah. 733 Sawant v. S.H.O. PLJ 1975 Cr. C. (Lah.) 368 = (FB) PLD 1978 Lah. 523 State v. Z.A. Bhutto.
S.H.O. concluding that no cognizable offence committed held his refusal to register FIR was justified. PLD 1988 Lah. 714 Safia Sultana v. SHO.
Arrest not shown in police diary, held, detention illegal and amounted to an offence. SHO directed to register FIR. NLR 1988 Cr. 53. Muhammad Yasin v. SHO.
Order for registration of F.I.R. on complaint when made to a Magistrate, the Magistrate may instead of taking cognizance of private complaint send it for the registration of a case and investigation by police. PLD 1975 Lah. 577. Raja Munawar Khan etc. v. Muhammad Ishaq etc. Also see PLD 1958 Dac. 598 Badsha Mia etc. PLD 1950 Dac. 631. Aziz-ur-Rehman. PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Lah.) 370. Munir Ahmed.
SHO could be directed to register the case by a Magistrate on receipt of complaint without himself taking cognizance of the case. (DB) 1998 Lah. 193 Allah Ditta v. I.G. Police etc.
Registration and investigation of case can be ordered by a Magistrate when he dos not take conginzance of the complaint and neither examines the complaint nor his witnesses. 1979 SCMR 200 Muhammad Ramzan.
Registration of case against public servant under Anti-Corruption Ordinance at ordinary police station u/S. 154, Cr.P.C.. was not illegal. Supreme Court case Abdul Latif; 1981 SCMR 1101 referred. PLD 1999 Lah. 109 Mirza Muhammad Iqbal and another v. Government of Punjab.
Registration of FIR at Police Station for offences under Punjab Anti-Corruption Ordinance, 1961 is legal u/S. 154, Cr.P.C. NLR 1999 Cr. 161 Mirza Muhammad Iqbal v. State, etc.
When private complaint is an adequate remedy, prayer for registration of FIR was declined is a murder case. (DB) PLD 1997 Kar. 600, Altaf Hussain v. Govt. of Sindh through Home Secretary. 
Registration of F.I.R. cannot be directed by High Court in all cases as other remedy is available by way of complaint to a Magistrate. PLJ 1977 Lah. 175. Muhammad Khan v. Khizar Hayat etc.
Writ Petition for registration of FIR dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had an adequate remedy available by filing a private complaint in the competent Court PLJ 1997 Lah. 184, Mst. Aish Bibi v. D.I.G. Police etc.
Registration and investigation of case can be ordered by a Magistrate when he does not take cognizance of the complaint and neither examines the complainant nor his witnesses. 1979 SCMR 200. Muhammad Ramzan.
Non-registration of case on the direction of High Court. Unqualified apology by the S.H.O. S.H.O. fined Rs. 3,000 for non-compliance of High Court Order. NLR 1984 Cr.28. Abdul Malik v. Saeed Ahmed.
Registration of case against police officials and submitting copy of FIR to High Court within 3 days ordered for offence u/S. 330, PPC, after judicial inquiry. NLR 1989 Cr. 311, Mst. Ghulam Zohran v. S.P., Rahim Yar Khan.
F.I.R. Registration of case: High Court refused to issue a direction to S.H.O. for the registration of a cognizable case as alternative remedy of complaint was available with the petitioner. The case did not involve collection of evidence, chemical examination of articles, post-mortem or medico-legal examination. (DB) PLD 1976 Lah. 1412. Ch Shah Muhammad v. S.H.O. Also see (FB) PLD 1972 Lah. 493 and PLD 1975 Lah. 733.
Two FIRs about same incident made by two different persons at different places, one earlier in time than the other, held, the latter is to be considered an independent FIR and can be used in evidence by prosecution. AIR 1936 Pat. 11 Emp. v. Lalji Rai and AIR 1940 All. 291 Emp. v. Aftab Ahmed Khan ref. (DB) PLD 1959 Lah. 1002 Ghulam Sarwar.
Registration of counter FIR about the same incident  refused by police. Held, order for registration of FIR would be of no help; petitioner to avail of alternate remedy of complaint. NLR 1991 Cr. 23 Riaz Ahmed v. I.G. Police.
Counter FIR lodged by accused 1« hours' after complainant's FIR may be used against accused, not as substantive piece of evidence, but may be put to the accused when examined u/S. 342, Cr.P.C. PLD 1963 SC 152. Ali Zaman.
Registration of second FIR with cross version refused by High Court as there is no provision in law for the registration of second FIR. 1994 P.Cr. LJ 295 (DB) Sadiq Masih v. SHO, etc.
Second FIR is to be registered when new case is made out and not mere elaboration of first FIR, and also cognizable offence is made out. (DB) PLJ 1987 Cr.C. (Lah.) 322. Allah Ditta v. S.H.O.
Second F.I.R. There is no provision for recording of second F.I.R. It would be a statement u/S. 161, Cr.P.C. (DB) PLJ 1979 Cr.C. (Lah.) 32. Ghulam Siddiq v. S.H.O.
Second FIR with a different version ordered to be registered according to the petitioner's version to arrest respondents Nos. 2 & 4, to obtain their physical remand and complete investigation within 14 days ordered. PLJ 1997 Lah. 1453, Muhammad Aslam v. SHO etc.
Recording of second FIR. In a cognizable case second FIR can be lodged with a counter version. In Writ Jurisdiction High Court may order the SHO to register FIR and investigate it. (DB) PLJ 1998 Q 1, Muhammad Ishaq v. S.P. Jaffarabad, etc.
Second FIR with a different version allowed to be registered. Registration to second FIR embodying counter version of a case is neither legally barred nor can such an Mushtaq Ahmad etc. PLD 1998 Lah. 111.
Second FIR giving different version of the same incident although the incident is admitted in the first FIR, can be registered and there is no bar to it. SHO directed to register FIR as proposed in the annex to writ petition. (DB) NLR 1987 Cr. 359. Ghulam Hussain v. Siraj-ul-Haq.
Second F.I.R. by accused giving different version is not to be registered, hence direction for registration of case refused. (DB) PLJ 1984 Cr.C. (Lah.) 272. Mushtaq Ahmed v. S.H.O.
Second F.I.R. for the same incident but with different version and allegations is not barred. NLR 1981 Cr. 181 Malik Muhammad Aslam v. S.H.O.
Registration of second FIR is not barred in appropriate cases disclosing cognizable offence, particularly in cases of counter versions. PLJ 1996 AJK 46, Muhammad Afzal v. Muhammad Ashraf etc.
Second FIR can be registered in appropriate cases. PLJ 1997 Lah 191, Muhammad Ilyas v. S.H.O.
Second FIR about same occurrence with different story could be investigated together but the second FIR disclosing dislodging the complaint story in t he FIR, held, the police must have registered the second FIR, SHO directed to comply with the order in letter and spirit. Appeal dismissed. (DB) PLD 1999 Lah. 39 Mulazim Hussain v. Maulana Abdul Jalil
Second FIR disclosing different version in case u/Ss. 302, 324, 148/149, PPC. Two distinct versions had come on record; one in the FIR the other in petition to SSP. Respondent police officers directed to register second FIR and conduct the investigation. PLD 1999 Lah. 50, Muhammad Anwar S.I. Railway Police v. SHO Railway.
Second FIR with a different version; registration refused by High Court as the police was investigating the case and it was the duty of the police to trace out real culprits. (D.B.) PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Kar.) 1818, Imdad Hussain v. P.O. Sindh etc.
Registration of second FIR about the same incident not ordered as the police could decide about the view of the writ petitioner in the first FIR. However, if the police did not agree with the petitioner view the petitioner was entitled to file a complaint against the other party. PLJ 1993 Lah. 12, Sajjad Ahmed v. SHO.
Registration of second F.I.R. with a different version about the same incident cannot be refused by police officer. PLJ 1984 Cr.C. (Lah.) 369 Halim Sarwar v. S.H.O.
Second F.I.R. about the same occurrence, but with a different version should be registered by S.H.O. when informed by a party. Writ petition allowed NLR 1982 Cr. 296. Abdul Ghani v. S.H.O.
F.I.R. at the spot: Practice not approved. However, it cannot discredit the prosecution case as a whole. (DB) 1976 P.Cr.LJ 993 Nazir Ahmed etc.
Recording of FIR after preliminary investigation is an irregularity which would not affect sanctity attached to FIR. (DB) NLR 1989 Cr. 465 Hassan.
FIR recorded after commencement of investigation, held, is not admissible in evidence. PLD 1965 Kar. 76. Budho. (DB) PLD 1950 BJ 51. Ghulam Qadar v. Crown.
F.I.R. recorded after preliminary investigation, on the spot, held is not admissible in evidence. Also held that the irregularity by itself is not sufficient to discard the prosecution case as false. (DB) 1976 P.Cr.LJ 911. Karim Bakhsh.
Registration of case after preliminary investigation is not only illegal act but also creates a serious doubt. FIR loses its sanctity and credibility. Witnesses disbelieved. Appeal allowed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lah.) 314, Nazir Masih.
FIR recorded after preliminary investigation is an irregularity which would not be sufficient to discard prosecution case as false. (DB) PLJ 1989 Cr.C. (Kar.) 283 Hassan.
F.I.R. recorded at the spot after investigation by an A.S.I. Police tantamounts to a statement made before police under section 161, Cr.P.C. and as such is inadmissible and is of no value. PLD 1968 Lah. 841 Mst. Naseem Akhtar (DB) = 1974 P.Cr.LJ 208 Abdul Sattar. Contra: PLD 1954 FC 112 Muhammad Siddik.
F.I.R. recorded at the spot after one hour of the arrival of police. Held, such F.I.R. recorded after consultation and setting up of witnesses, not relied. (DB) PLJ 1982 Cr.C. (Lah.) 295. Muhammad Hassan. NLR 1982 Cr. 467.
FIR recorded at the spot, the statement of the complainant should be thoroughly scrutinised by way of abundant caution as to eliminate chances of false implication. (D.B) PLD 1995 Lah 440, Abdul Wahad etc.
F.I.R. at the spot: Investigating Officer proceeding to scene of stabbing and recording detailed statement of an eye-witness. Statement treated as F.I.R. and held admissible. (FC) PLD 1954 FC 112. Muhammad Siddik.
F.I.R. recorded at the spot; Practice deprecated by the High Court. Such practice, however, would not have the effect of throwing out of consideration entire prosecution case. (DB) 1974 P.Cr.LJ Note 105 Aziz Ahmed.
FIR recorded after the investigation; Report made to the Sub-Inspector police at the police station. The S.I. instead of taking it down immediately leaving for the spot and recording the F.I.R. after making investigation. Sanctity attached to the F.I.R. vanished in the circumstances. (DB) 1975 P.Cr.750 Anwar. PLJ 1978 Cr.C. (Lah.) 16 Muhammad Hanif. (DB) PLJ 1982 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 338 Mst. Mohammadia.
FIR recorded on Fard Bayan carries no sanctity, because the police officer can conveniently give any time suitable to him while recording the statement of the first informant on the basis of which formal FIR is recorded. 1994 P.Cr.LJ 1069, Javed Iqbal.
FIR and subsequent statement Tatima Bian made by the first informant are two different things. Any statement or further statement of the first informant recorded during police investigation would neither be equated with FIR nor read as part of it. Name of the accused did not appear in the FIR although he was previously known to the first informant. Subsequent statement of complainant involving the accused in the case was false improvement which made the basis for other eye-witnesses as well for their false statements. Accused given benefit of doubt. 1995 SCMR 1350, Falak Sher = PLJ 1995 S.C. 481.
No preliminary inquiry can be conducted bout initiation of any crime/offence before registration of FIR. Negligence or refusal by police officer competent in the matter to register the FIR exposes himself to action under Section 29 of Police Act, 1861. SHO directed to register the FIR. PLJ 1997 Lah. 1547, Qazi Muhammad Javed v. SSP Gujranwala, etc.
F.I.R. after investigation does not make the F.I.R. inadmissible in a case where investigation was set in motion on a report about the disappearance of the deceased. (DB) NLR 1985 Cr. 227. Sabz Ali.
F.I.R. made after start of the investigation by the police, being a statement of a person before the police u/S. 161, Cr.P.C. is not admissible in evidence and cannot be taken into consideration. (DB) PLD 1950 BJ 51 Ghulam Qadir v. Crown.
F.I.R. not recorded at Police Station; When F.I.R. is not recorded at Police Station, unavoidable inference is that it was recorded after preliminary investigation. Evidence of witnesses named in such F.I.R. not believed. (DB) PLD 1967 Pesh. 269 Ghulam Qadar.
Complainant meeting police officer accidentally on his way to Police Station. Presumption is that the F.I.R. was recorded at the spot. (DB) 1969 P.Cr.LJ 1204 Allah Bakhsh.
FIR cannot be registered by police officer for violation of sec. 144 Sec. 195 (1)(a) Cr.P.C. Proceedings being invalid quashed. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Kar.) 722, Abdul Baqi etc.
F.I.R. not at Police Station: The information which is recorded in the Mofussil by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police cannot be treated as F.I.R. because he is not the officer-in-charge of the Police Station in fact or within the meaning of section 4, Cr.P.C. 30 Cr.LJ 803 Momin Talukdar v. Emperor.
FIR not recorded at P.S: It would be presumed to have been recorded after preliminary investigation, is a presumption not of universal application. No adverse inference can be raised against genuine FIR. NLR 1989 Cr. 705 Habibur Rehman.
Registration of FIR not at Police Station: The presumption is that it was recorded after preliminary investigation, which makes its authenticity doubtful. PLJ 1989 Cr.C. 429. Muhammad Ashraf.
FIR not lodged at Police Station but police had reached the spot much before the time when statement of the complainant was recorded. So investigation was dishonest from the very beginning. This infirmity would put the Court on guard while appreciating the prosecution evidence. PLJ 1996 S.C. 139, Basharat, etc.
FIR not written at the time and place as shown and the investigation from the very beginning was dishonest. Motive alleged by the prosecution did not fit in the manner in which the deceased had been done to death. Recovery of blood stained chhuri from the house of the accused after 10 days was doubtful. Accused acquitted. 1995 SCMR 1135, Basharat etc.
Eye-witnesses not named in F.I.R. is not always a sufficient reason for discarding evidence of person claiming to be an eye-witness. (SC) PLD 1964 SC 26. Siraj Din v. Kala.
Names of witnesses not mentioned in F.I.R. but subsequently mentioned in supplementary statement. Testimony held suspicious and excluded from consideration. (DB) PLD 1964 Lah. 32. Muzaffar Ali.
Mention of all accused or any accused not necessary: When F.I.R. discloses a cognizable offence police have a legal right to investigate without sanction from judicial authorities. (FB) PLD 1964 Lah. 148 Bashir Saigol.
Omission to name accused in F.I.R. Omission to mention in F.I.R. presence of one accused armed with axe and of another accused firing at deceased. Held, would not affect evidentiary value of statement of a prosecution witness. (DB) PLD 1971 Pesh. 32 Nekam Gul etc. PLD 1961 SC 230 ref. (SC) PLD 1978 SC 10 Moka v. Zulfiqar etc.
Assailant not named in the F.I.R. nor giving a counter-version. Report subsequently lodged could not be discredited by first report. (SC) PLD 1975 SC 275 Abdul Rehman PLJ 1975 SC 275.
Omission of names of accused and witnesses in F.I.R. made by a person not an eye-witness. Omission does not affect the merits of the case. (DB) PLD 1964 Quetta 6 Rasul Bakhsh.
Not to be exhaustive: F.I.R. is not supposed to be exhaustive document giving all details. Fact that some details are not mentioned in F.I.R. does not detract from its correctness. (DB0 PLD 1971 Lah. 883 Fazalur Rehman.
FIR to give material particulars of the case without giving detail of incidental matters. 1993 SCMR 1614, Muhammad Hussain.
Minute details are not expected or necessary in the F.I.R. (SC) PLD 1977 SC 529 Fazalur Rehman v. Abdul Ghani etc.
F.I.R. is not expected to be detailed document. PLJ 1983 SC 393 Khushi Muhammad NLR 1983 Cr. 423.
No guarantee of truth: Possibility that delay in making the F.I.R. was deliberate mention of the witness's name in such F.I.R. is no guarantee of the truth of his statement. (SC) 1969 SCMR 629 Ghulam Nabi v. Crown.
FIR if found false: Police must disown it. (SC) PLD 1964 SC 26 Siraj Din V. Kala.
FIR very different from evidence in the case. Prosecution must come to the Court with clean hands. Conviction set aside. (DB) PLD 1960 Dacca 1019 Tasir.
Evidence of eye-witnesses did not tally with F.I.R. Such evidence, though requiring close scrutiny, cannot be rejected on that score alone. (SC) 1968 SCMR 1025 Karam Ali etc. 1968 P.Cr.LJ 1645.
FIR version: the version given in FIR is to be accepted after scrutinising it with reference to the rest of the case and probabilities. The Court must ascertain that in fact it was an FIR (SC) 1969 P.Cr.LJ 1047 Ali Gohar v. the Crown.
When the first informant speaks from hearsay: FIR can only be used to corroborate the maker in the witness-box. If the informant himself can only speak from hearsay the report cannot be used to corroborate such inadmissible evidence of the witness. 6 Lah. 437 Sajjan Singh v. Emperor.
Hearsay report received by the Sub-Inspector of fight going on does not amount to FIR (SC) 1975 SCMR 222 Amir Bachah.
FIR not by an eye-witness. Fact that report had not been lodged by eye-witness, a very relevant circumstance. PLD 1964 SC 26 Siraj Din v. Kalat.
FIR by person who was not eye-witness therefore the version in the FIR was only a second hand account and therefore could not furnish satisfactory confirmation of the ocular account. Accused acquitted. 1996 SCMR 1931, Shamshad.
Accused reporting his own crime (Murder) to police, held, such statement in FIR is not admissible because of its confessional character. PLD 1965 SC 366. (DB) PLD 1961 Lah. 146 Ghulam Muhammad.
FIR by the accused. Incriminating part of the FIR alone is not admissible, the rest of the statement can be considered. (DB) 1975 P.Cr.LJ 882 Mohabat.
" FIR made by the accused himself is rightly excluded from consideration at the trial. (SC) PLD 1956 SC (Pak) 420 Muhammad Bakhsh.
FIR made by co-accused cannot be used as evidence against the maker and also not to corroborate or contradict other witnesses. PLD 1957 SC (Ind.) 297 Nisar Ali.
FIR by co-accused can neither be used as evidence against him at his own trial nor to corroborate or contradict other witnesses. PLD 1957 SC (Ind.) 297. (DB) PLD 1961 Lah. 146 Ghulam Muhammad.
Confessional statement by the accused as FIR cannot be used against him. PLD 1965 SC 366 Muhammad Saleh. PLD 1960 Pesh. 137 State v. Gandhal; PLD 1961 Lah. 146 = (DB) 1976 P.Cr.LJ. 1.
Not an FIR. Report giving no detail as to who caused injuries and the other necessary information. Such report cannot be called FIR. (DB) 1972 P.Cr.LJ 491 Abdur Rehman.
Not FIR. FIR must disclose at least reasonable suspicion of commission of cognizable offence. Report of stabbing not excluding possibility of accident not treated as FIR. (FC) PLD 1954 FC 112 Muhammad Siddiq.
Unsigned telegram or telephonic message is not FIR. (DB) PLD 1952 Lah. 215 = PLD 1960 Lah. 97 = PLD 1965 Quetta 33 Ghazi Khan etc.
Telephonic information disclosing commission of an offence treated as FIR. (DB) PLD 1965 Dacca 305 M.R. Sarang etc.
Telephonic message. In order to qualify as a FIR it should be an information relating to cognizable offence; should, be reduced in writing and read over to the informant. (DB) PLJ 1977 Kar. 136 Muhammad Saleem. PLD 1977 Kar. 75.
Telephonic message not considered an FIR although it reached the police station first in time, as it did not disclose commission of a cognizable offence. PLJ 1984 SC 441 Punhal Shah.
No FIR. Fact that no FIR was made or proved at trial would not vitiate the trial. (DB) 1968 P.Cr.LJ 720 Mohabat etc.
FIR not signed or thumb marked by informant cannot be considered. PLJ 1974 Cr.C. (Lah.) 486 Kala.
FIR not substantive evidence to belie statements of P.Ws. It can be used to contradict its maker only. Mere non-mention of names in FIR is not always a sufficient reason for discarding evidence of person claiming to be an eye-witness. (SC) PLD 1964 SC 26. Siraj Din v. Kala etc. PLD 1962 SC 480 = (SC) 1971 SCMR 398 Nisar Ahmad.
FIR not substantive evidence; and facts mentioned in it cannot be taken notice of against the accused unless first informant is examined. (DB) PLJ 1982 Cr. C. (Pesh. )485 Jehan Zab.
FIR is not substantive evidence. Receipt and recording of FIR is not a condition precedent for setting in motion of criminal investigation. Even if FIR is not proved at the trial the accused has a right to cross examine the first informant on the basis of the FIR . PLJ 1996 S.C. 1713, Khadim Ali = 1996 SCMR 1855.
FIR not a piece of substantive evidence and cannot be used against the accused unless put to the maker for corroboration or contradiction. 1985 SCMR 838. Tufail Masih.
FIR not substantive piece of evidence, it can be used to contradict its maker. 1991 SCMR 1608 Anwar Ali Khan v. Wahid Bakhsh etc.
FIR an important document, though not substantive evidence. It shows what was known about the case at the earliest. 1985 SCMR 1573 Mujahid Hussain.
FIR never substantive evidence: FIR lodged by person other than eye-witnesses cannot be used to corroborate evidence of eye-witnesses. (SC) PLD 1955 SC 111. Sohni v. Bahaduri etc.
FIR is not substantive evidence unless treated as dying declaration. NLR 1984 Cr. 616 Abdul Sattar.
Conviction cannot be based on contents of FIR alone, unless the contents of FIR are supported in the Court by evidence. PLD 1994 S.C. 255, Umar said etc.
Contents of FIR unless proved by the maker cannot be used against the accused as the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence. (D.B) PLD 1994 Pesh 214, Asal Muhammad etc.
When FIR is not proved in the case it would not per se vitiate the conviction. PLD 1994 Pesh. 102, Muhammad Riaz etc.
Not necessary to prove FIR in all cases for securing conviction. Even if FIR is not proved sentence and conviction of accused cannot be set aside if case is otherwise proved. PLJ 1997 S.C. (A.J.K.) 60, Mst. Rehmat Bibi v. Muhammad Najib etc.
Non-production of FIR not fatal to prosecution case, when the statement of the maker of the FIR has been exhibited in the Court. 1995 SCMR 1304, Jawad Ali.
When maker of FIR is dead. FIR unless the man who made it dies is not admissible evidence of any fact contained in it. It merely prove that this was the original story which set the police in motion. AIR 1938 Rang. 282 King v. Mong Po.
Sections of offences in FIR do not determine the offence but the allegations are to be considered. PLJ 1980 Cr.C. (Lah. ) 432 Amanat Ali.
FIR certified copy, is admissible in evidence, without further proof as it is a public document. PLD 1985 Lah. 214 Irshad Ahmed v. Abdul Hamid etc.
Absence of complainant in a cognizable case does not entitle the accused to acquittal. Case remanded for retrial. PLJ 1986 Cr.C. (Pesh. ) 3 Karim Dad v. Sher Rehman.
No complaint made but charge-sheet by inspector F.I.A. for offence u/Ss. 18-A and 24 (6) of Emigration Ordinance XVIII of 1969 submitted to Court of Special Judge. Only Assistant Director could file the complaint and sanction of the Government was necessary. Accused acquitted for non-compliance with the law. PLJ 1988 Cr.C. (Kar.) 130. Irshad 1986 P.Cr.LJ 1158 Moin-ud-Din.
Cancellation of FIR after cognizance of offence is taken by Court is patently unjust and abuse of process of Court. Order of magistrate cancelling FIR for offences u/Ss. 307, 148, 149, PPC quashed and magistrate directed to proceed with the trial. NLR 1991 Cr. 12. Hajim Javed.
FIR cannot be sealed as there is no provision of law authorising the sealing of FIR. FIR is sealed so that averse party is put to inconvenience whose honour and exercise discretion to admit accused to pre-arrest bail even through a copy of the FIR is not annexed with the petition and only a number of FIR with year and Police Station is mentioned. Police or any executive authority cannot seal an FIR. PLJ 1997 Lah. 1466, Mst. Razia Shaheen. PLD 1997 Lah. 659.
Registration of case of Zina under Hudood Ordinance on the report of mukhbar (i.e. secret information) us totally unwarranted and is against the injunctions of Islam. PLJ 1998 Lah. 1311 Riaz v. SHO
Complaint case and FIR case with different version 2 witnesses examined in the complaint case who wee accused in the FIR case, held no objection can be taken to their examination as witnesses. PLJ 1998 SC 835 Muhammad Dildar Malik v.Tahir Muhammad etc.
FIR quashed in writ jurisdiction for offences u/Ss. 10(2) & 11 of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 when the abductee stated in her statement u/S. 164 Cr.P.C. that she is sui juris and voluntarily contracted marriage with the accused petitioner. FIR quashed. PLJ 1998 Lah. 761 Javed Iqbal v. SHO Burevwala, etc.
FIR quashed under Article 199 of the Constitution read with Sec. 561-A Cr.P.C.. and rule 8 of the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985. FIR could only be registered against public servants by Anti-Corruption Establishment under written orders mentioned in Rule 8 of Punjab A.E. Rules, 1985 and not by the local police station. FIR was declared to be without lawful authority and quashed. PLJ 1998 Lah. 1651 Muhammad Hafeez etc.
FIR based on mala fide quashed in writ jurisdiction when complaint appeared in High Court and disowned complaint PLJ 1998 Lah. 1667 Ch. Atta Mohayo-ud-Din.
FIR u/Ss. 10, 11, 16 and 20 of Offence of Zina Hudood Ordinance quashed by Federal Shariat Court in application prosecution story appeared to be unnatural and there was enmity and litigation about immovable property. PLJ 1998 FSC 114 Mst. Shireen Mazhar etc. v. State etc.