The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSS') mentions that citizen centric approach has been adopted in that statute as it provides for supply of copy of First Information Report (FIR) to the victim. On a close scrutiny of the provision concerned, it can be found that the said statement is not justified in its entirety.

Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') deals with registration of FIR on receipt of information regarding a cognizable offence by the officer in charge of a police station. Section 154(2) of the Code provides for furnishing copy of the FIR, free of cost, to the informant. Sections 154(1) and 154(2) of the Code now stand replaced by Sections 173(1) and 173(2) of the BNSS respectively.

The change

Section 154(2) of the Code provides that a copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given

forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. Section 173(2) of the BNSS, the corresponding provision, states that, a copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant or the victim.

Informant can be any person

There is no requirement that information regarding a cognizable offence shall be given at the police station by the victim himself/herself. Any person can be an informant of the commission of a cognizable offence.

First Information Report can even be given by a person who was not in any way concerned with the incident but by a person who had the information from another.¹ An informant may lodge a report about the commission of an offence though he may not know the name of the victim or the assailant. He may not even know how the occurrence took place. What is of significance is that the information given must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the information so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence.²

In Nankhu Singh v. State of Bihar,³ the Supreme Court has held that, the statement given by the informant need not necessarily be an eye witness account of what he has actually seen. In other words, the person who gives the first information statement need not even be an eye-witness. The Apex Court has reiterated this aspect in other cases also.⁴

In Hallu v. State of M.P,⁵ the Apex Court has held that, Section 154 of the Code (now Section 173 of the BNSS) does not require that the first information report must be given by a person who has personal knowledge of the incident reported.

The law is very clear and well settled that a report which discloses the commission of a cognizable offence must be treated as the first information report under Section 154 of the Code (now Section 173 of the BNSS). It does not matter whether the person lodging the report had witnessed the commission of the offence or not. The requirement of Section 154 of the Code (now Section 173 of the BNSS) is only that the report must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and it is sufficient to set the investigating machinery into action.⁶

Even very recently, the Supreme Court has observed that, any person can be an informant of a case, and the police may also register a case on their own.⁷

Purpose not fully achieved

Section 154(2) of the Code provides that a copy of the FIR shall be given to the informant. Now, Section 173(2) of the BNSS provides that a copy of the FIR shall be given to the informant or the victim. In a given case, if the informant is a person other than the victim of the offence, it is only proper to give copy of the FIR, free of cost, to both the informant and the victim. The expression now used in Section 173(2) of the BNSS is “informant or the victim”. It means that, copy of the FIR need be given either to the informant or the victim. Where the informant is a person other than the victim, it may lead to a situation that, if the informant has already been given a copy of the FIR, the victim cannot, as of right, claim a copy of it. Therefore, the change now brought in under Section 173(2) of the BNSS, does not fully achieve the purpose intended by it.

In order to make the provision under Section 173(2) of the BNSS really victim centric, the expression “informant or the victim” employed therein has to be read, in appropriate context, as

“informant and the victim”. Or else, as recommended by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs, in its report (Report No.247), the provision has to be amended by inserting the words “or both, as the case may be” after the expression “to the informant or the victim”.

Copy shall be given forthwith

Section 173(2) of the BNSS (Section 154(2) of the Code) provides for giving copy of the FIR to the informant or the victim 'forthwith'.

The word 'forthwith' is synonymous with the word 'immediately' or 'promptly', which means with all reasonable quickness. The expression 'forthwith' means 'as soon as may be', 'with reasonable speed and expedition', 'with a sense of urgency', and 'without any unnecessary delay'. Normally, it would mean, as soon as possible, judged in the context of the object sought to be achieved or accomplished. The interpretation of the word 'forthwith' would depend upon the terrain in which it travels and would take its colour depending upon the prevailing circumstances which can be variable.⁸

In the context of Section 173(2) of the BNSS, the word 'forthwith' can be understood as having the meaning 'as soon as possible'.

Not mandatory

The expression “shall” used in Section 173(2) of the BNSS (Section 154(2) of the Code) will indicate that compliance of that provision is mandatory.

However, in State v. N.S Gnaneswaran,⁹ the Supreme Court has held that, the provisions of Section 154(2) of the Code (now Section 173(2) of the BNSS) are merely directory and not mandatory as it prescribes only a duty to give the copy of the FIR. But, it is to be noted that, it was a case in which the accused sought the relief of quashing of the FIR on the ground that copy of the FIR had not been furnished to the informant.

The decision in Gnaneswaran was followed by the Supreme Court in Dharmendra Kumar @ Dhamma v. State of Madhya Pradesh.¹⁰ But, it was a case in which the accused had sought the relief of setting aside his conviction, on the ground that the formalities under Section 154 of the Code had not been complied with.

Conclusion

It is now well-settled that a victim has got participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision.¹¹ If that be so, at least from the victim's point of view, is it not mandatory to comply with the requirement under Section 173(2) of the BNSS so that the victim could effectively enforce and enjoy such rights? Is it not mandatory to comply with the requirement under Section 173(2) of the BNSS so that the victim could effectively participate in the criminal proceedings right from the stage of investigation? In the context of the fast-developing jurisprudence of victimology, these questions may turn out to be very important in future, necessitating much deliberations.

Author is Former Judge, High Court of Kerala.

1. State of Rajasthan v. Kartar Singh: AIR 1970 SC 1305.
2. Superintendent of Police v. Tapan Kumar Singh: AIR 2003 SC 4140.
3. AIR 1973 SC 491.
4. Superintendent of Police v. Tapan Kumar Singh: AIR 2003 SC 4140.
5. AIR 1974 SC 1936.
6. Hem Raj v. State of Punjab: AIR 2003 SC 4259.
7. Rama Devi v. State of Bihar: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2692 : 2024 INSC 755.
8. Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen: AIR 2024 SC 2984.
9. AIR 2013 SC 3673.
10. AIR 2024 SC 4354.
11. Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra: AIR 2022 SC 1918.