mehnatCertain minimum facts are necessary in an F.I.R.
Top of PageAlthough an F.I.R. is not required to be the encyclopaedia of a crime, still it is necessary that a necessary minimum quantum of facts is mentioned therein. This position has been canvassed by the Supreme Court also in a few decisions (see below).
Supreme Court judgments wherein it is declared that certain minimum facts are necessary in an F.I.R.
Top of PageBare outlines of two decisions of the Supreme Court wherein it has been noted that certain minimum facts are necessary in an FIR are adumbrated here [18][19].
State of Andhra Pradesh vs Golconda Linga Swamy
Top of PageThe relevant portion of State of Andhra Pradesh vs Golconda Linga Swamy reads as below.
Supreme Court
Equivalent Citations: (2004) 6 SCC 522;
State of Andhra Pradesh vs Golconda Linga Swamy
Date of Judgment: 27/07/2004
Decided by a division bench of the Supreme Court of India
Variava, S.N. (J)
Pasayat, A. (J)
Held (in the 11th paragraph of the judgment):
"...Though the FIR is not intended to be an encyclopedia of the background scenario, yet even skeletal features must disclose the commission of an offence. The position is not so in these cases. Therefore, the High Court's interference does not suffer from any legal infirmity, though the reasonings indicated by the High Court do not have our approval."
Arulvelu & Another vs State represented By Public Prosecutor and Another
Top of PageDalveer Bhandari wrote the judgment in Arulvelu & Another vs State represented By Public Prosecutor and Another. In addition to what is extracted below it was stated that when two views are possible, the view favouring the accused merits acceptance.
Supreme Court
Equivalent Citations: (2009) 10 SCC 206;
Arulvelu & Another vs State represented By Public Prosecutor and Another
Date of Judgment: 07/10/2009
Decided by a division bench of the Supreme Court of India
Bhandari, D. (J)
Chauhan, B.S. (J)
Held (in the 16th paragraph of the judgment):
"The High Court observed that the FIR cannot be an encyclopedia to contain all the details of history of the case. This approach of the High Court does not seem to be correct. The FIR should at least mention a broad story of the prosecution and not mentioning of material and vital facts may affect the credibility of the FIR."
References:
Top of Page18)State of Andhra Pradesh vs Golconda Linga Swamy And Another on 27 July, 2004; Indiankanoon.org; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 15th May 2021
19)Arulvelu & Another vs State Represented By Public Prosecutor & Another on 7 October, 2009; Indiankanoon.org; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 15th May 2021