When FIR Omits Crucial Facts & They Are Added Later Through S.161 CrPC Statements, It Indicates Afterthought : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that subsequent mentioning of crucial facts, which the complainant could have stated at the time of lodging of the FIR itself, would raise doubts as it indicates an afterthought.The omission of crucial facts in the FIR cannot be supplemented through witness statements under Section 161 CrPC, the Court held."Though FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopedia containing all the detailed facts of the incident and it is merely a document that triggers and sets into motion the criminal legal process, yet it must disclose the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed as otherwise, it would be susceptible to being quashed," the Court observed.The Court made these observations while quashing a criminal case against the accused-appellant under Section 186 (Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions) and Section 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) of the IPC. The Bench of Justices B. V. Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh opined that the offence specified under Section 353 is of more serious nature involving a stringent punishment when compared with Section 186. While in Section 186 voluntarily obstructing any public servant in discharge of his official function would suffice, there is clear requirement of criminal force or assault under Section 353. “However, a perusal of the FIR in issue does not at all indicate the commission of any crime of use of criminal force or assault by the appellant to the public servant, except for the offence of obstruction which is punishable under Section 186 of the IPC. As such the ingredients of offence under Section 353 of the IPC are clearly absent in the FIR.” The Court added that since the ingredients of Section 353 were missing in the FIR, the cognizance taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was not correct. The present case revolved around the FIR filed against the appellant under Section 186 (Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions) and Section 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty). Though the FIR did not have allegations regarding S.353 IPC, the High Court refused to quash it on the ground that the statements of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC mentioned such allegations. Against this backdrop, the present appeal was filed. The Apex Court noted that the vital facts constituting the ingredients of Section 353 were missing from the FIR."What is to be noted in the present case is that if the appellant had actually used criminal force or had assaulted the public servants, which would bring the said acts within the scope of Section 353 of the IPC, nothing prevented the complainant from mentioning the same in the FIR being the first information. If such vital and crucial facts are missing from the FIR of which the complainant was fully aware of and was already cognizant of, which he could have mentioned at the first instance, it would indicate that any subsequent mentioning of these facts in the case by the complainant would be an afterthought as has happened in the present case.” Based on these observations, the Court rendered the present FIR as untenable. Apart from this, the Court also perused the witnesses' statement which also formed the basis of the impugned judgment. None of the statements disclosed the ingredients of Section 353. Observing that nothing related to criminal force or assault was mentioned in the FIR, the Court said that the “contents of the statements recorded later under Section 161 of the CrPC clearly appears to be an afterthought as has happened in the present case.” The Court also noted that the written complaint only uses the expression of “creating obstruction”. It opined that attributing disturbance to assault or criminal force will amount to abuse of process of law. “There can be no doubt that there is a sea of difference between “creating disturbance” and the “assault” and “criminal force” terms mentioned under Section 353 of the IPC and defined under Sections 350 and 351 of the IPC respectively.” Thus, on the above counts, the Court held that the cognizance taken by the Trial Court was vitiated and set aside the criminal proceedings against the accused appellant. Also read: Complaint Within Meaning Of CrPC Is One Filed Before Judicial Magistrate & Not Executive Magistrate : Supreme Court Case name: B. N. JOHN v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR., SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 2184 OF 2024Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 4 Click here to read the judgment

When FIR Omits Crucial Facts & They Are Added Later Through S.161 CrPC Statements, It Indicates Afterthought : Supreme Court

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags