Information in cognizable cases
Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with information in cognizable cases. Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read Over to the informant; The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read Over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in subsection (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.
Section 154, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 173 Information in cognizable cases Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Registration of an FIR under section 154 CrPC is mandatory if the information discloses a cognizable offence. A preliminary inquiry is permitted only in a closed list of cases (matrimonial/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption, and cases with abnormal delay) and must be completed promptly.
On this section: FIR registration under s.154 is mandatory if the information discloses a cognizable offence; limited preliminary-inquiry exceptions.
-
Priyanka Srivastava vs State of U. P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving Section 156(3) CrPC applications, particularly in commercial disputes and debt recovery matters where statutory alternative remedies exist under special statutes like SARFAESI Act and Recovery of Debts due to Banks Act, a Magistrate must exercise strict judicial application of mind before ordering investigation. The Magistrate must: (1) Consider allegations in their entirety and nature, (2) Evaluate whether allegations remotely disclose cognizable offence, (3) Assess whether forwarding to police is conducive to justice, (4) Note dates of incidents and any abnormal delays in reporting, (5) Conduct preliminary enquiry in commercial dispute categories to verify credibility, (6) Consider legislative protections afforded to secured creditors under special acts like Section 32 SARFAESI Act, (7) Be vigilant against abuse of Section 156(3) as tool for harassment and extracting settlements. Mere mechanical order 'as per application' without stated reasons is erroneous. Applications under Section 156(3) should be supported by sworn affidavit from applicant, making applicant accountable for false allegations under Section 191 IPC. FIR registration, while mandatory under Section 154 upon cognizable offence information, does not mandate investigation if preliminary enquiry reveals lack of credibility. Criminal proceedings cannot be used to pressure financial institutions into favorable settlements in debt disputes where statutory forums (DRT/DRAT) exist for resolution.
On this section: FIR registration by police; Court noted mandatory registration requirement when cognizable offence information received, but subsequent investigation remains discretionary
-
State Rep. by Insepctor of Police, Chennai vs N. S. Gnaneswaran
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The procedural requirement under Section 154(2) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to issue a copy of the First Information Report to the informant is merely a directory provision and not a mandatory requirement. Non-compliance with this directory provision does not vitiate the registration of an FIR or the subsequent investigation, provided that: (1) the information recorded discloses the commission of a cognizable offence; (2) the party seeking to challenge the FIR fails to demonstrate any actual prejudice or injustice caused by the procedural lapse; and (3) the court examining the validity of the FIR must apply the doctrine of prejudice by looking to the substance of the matter rather than focusing on technical procedural violations. Therefore, an FIR registered on the basis of recorded information revealing a cognizable offence is valid and investigation may proceed despite failure to strictly comply with the procedural requirement of issuing a copy to the informant.
On this section: The entire section 154 was analyzed regarding procedure for recording information and issuing copy to informant; Court held section 154(2) regarding copy issuance is merely directory, not mandatory
-
State of Maharashtra vs Sarabgdharsingh Shivdassing Chavan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Chief Minister of a State cannot lawfully issue instructions to police authorities to give special treatment in the registration of criminal cases to any individual or family, regardless of their political status, because such interference violates the mandatory statutory obligation of police to register cognizable offences under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code and breaches the constitutional guarantee of equality before law under Article 14 of the Constitution. Any such executive direction is unconstitutional, constitutes an abuse of power, and subverts the rule of law, which is a vital component of the constitutional framework ensuring equal protection and access to justice for all citizens.
On this section: Cited to establish that police officer, on information disclosing cognizable offence, shall record the same in accordance with this section without executive discretion or interference
-
Honnaiah T. H vs The State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An informant/injured victim has the legal standing to file a criminal revision petition challenging an order passed during trial, provided the order is not merely interlocutory but substantially affects the rights of the parties or could result in gross miscarriage of justice. The test for determining whether an order is interlocutory is whether it is of a purely interim or temporary nature that does not decide or touch upon important rights or liabilities of parties. Any order that substantially affects the rights of parties, such as an order refusing to mark crucial evidence as an exhibit, is not interlocutory and is therefore subject to revision. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC can be exercised at the instance of a private complainant or informant where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence or committed a manifest illegality that could result in gross miscarriage of justice.
On this section: Governs the registration of First Information Reports (FIR) based on information received by police.
-
Ranbir Yadav vs U. O. I
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Court has authority to monitor and oversee executive action and policy implementation in matters of fundamental rights protection, including racial discrimination. International human rights conventions ratified by India inform the interpretation of constitutional guarantees against discrimination. While courts cannot mandate legislation, they can ensure that executive commitments to address human rights violations are effectively implemented through establishment of dedicated monitoring mechanisms and oversight committees. The protection of citizens from discrimination based on regional origin is within the scope of Article 15 of the Constitution, and the government has a constitutional obligation under Article 51A(e) to take affirmative steps to prevent such discrimination.
On this section: Compulsory registration of First Information Reports when information makes out a cognizable offence - emphasized in court directions and government advisories
-
Karma Dorjee vs U. O. I
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court of India has jurisdiction to issue guidelines and establish monitoring mechanisms to prevent racial discrimination and atrocities against citizens on grounds of regional origin, particularly those from north-eastern states. Such discrimination violates Article 15 of the Constitution and fundamental duty under Article 51A(e). India's ratification of the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination requires interpretation of constitutional guarantees against discrimination in light of international human rights obligations. While the court cannot mandate legislative amendments, it can direct implementation of policy recommendations accepted by the government through a dedicated monitoring committee structure to ensure accountability and prevent systemic racial discrimination.
On this section: Mandatory registration of First Information Reports when information makes out cognizable offence. Court emphasized importance of proper FIR registration in discrimination cases.
-
Sunil Bharti Mittal vs Cbi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In the absence of a specific statutory provision creating vicarious criminal liability, mere position as a director or controlling authority of a company does not automatically make an individual criminally liable for corporate offences. An individual director can be made accused along with a company only if there is sufficient evidence of: (1) active personal role in committing the alleged offence, (2) knowledge of the wrongful act, and (3) criminal intent. The principle of 'alter ego' in corporate criminal liability operates only in one direction - the criminal intent and acts of persons controlling the company are imputed to the company, NOT vice versa. A trial court, while exercising its power to summon non-named accused persons under Section 190 CrPC, must record specific satisfaction based on material on record showing the individual's involvement, and must give reasons in its order explaining how the evidence establishes criminal culpability. A bare application of the 'alter ego' doctrine without examining specific material against the individual or without statutory provision creating vicarious liability is legally incorrect and renders the summoning order bad in law.
On this section: Section 190 deals with taking cognizance of offences. Section 204 deals with issue of process. Section 319 deals with summoning of additional accused during trial. Section 209 deals with committal to Court of Session. Section 482 relates to High Court's power to quash proceedings. The court extensively discussed these sections to clarify the procedure for summoning additional accused and the proper exercise of judicial discretion.
-
In Re: vs Indian Woman Says Gang-raped on Orders
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The State has a constitutional duty under Article 21 of the Constitution to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens, including the freedom of choice in marriage and protection from sexual violence. When the State fails to prevent grave violations of these fundamental rights such as gang rape, the State is duty bound to provide substantial monetary compensation to the victim for rehabilitation and must implement systemic reforms including police vigilance, mandatory victim protection procedures under the Criminal Procedure Code, and long-term victim rehabilitation. Panchayats and village councils have no legal authority to order, authorize, or participate in violence or sexual assault, and such acts constitute unlawful assemblies and barbaric crimes deserving harsh punishment. The investigating agency must comply with mandatory procedural requirements including recording rape FIRs and victim statements exclusively by women police officers, invoking all applicable criminal sections, obtaining and certifying all evidence properly, and investigating larger conspiracies if any.
On this section: Court emphasized amended provision (dated 03.02.2013) mandatorily requires FIR in sexual assault cases to be recorded by woman police officer or woman officer; Court found this requirement was not complied with as FIR was scribed by male officer; Court emphasized importance of this safeguard for victim protection
-
State of Bihar vs Anand Mohan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving mass violence and mob culpability, conviction of an abettor (non-principal assailant) for murder under Section 302/109 IPC can be sustained based on ocular evidence of exhortation if: (1) At least 2-3 or a clear majority of credible witnesses consistently depose about the exhortation to the actual shooter (Masalti test); (2) The evidence of exhortation is clear, cogent and reliable, not merely suspicion or tendency to implicate; (3) The medical and ocular evidence is not materially contradictory; (4) The abettor does not discharge the burden of establishing alibi or contrary narrative through defense evidence; and (5) Even if an unlawful assembly with common object of murder is not established, individual liability for abetment through direct exhortation can still be sustained. Furthermore, an ante-dated and ante-timed FIR does not render the entire prosecution case unreliable if the core facts are corroborated by immediate wireless information sent from the scene; however, death sentence is not appropriate for abetment in mass violence cases where the abettor is not the principal assailant.
On this section: First Information Report (FIR) - detailed analysis of what constitutes valid FIR, cryptic information, signature requirement, and when information must be treated as FIR
-
State of Bihar vs Arun Kumar Sinha
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where eyewitness evidence from multiple independent witnesses consistently establishes that an accused person exhorted another person to commit murder, and the exhortation is sufficient to instigate the act of murder, the accused can be held guilty of abetment of murder under Section 302/109 IPC even if the accused did not personally commit the act of murder. The test for conviction in such cases involving multiple offenders is that if the testimony is supported by 2-3 or more witnesses giving consistent account of the incident (Masalti test), conviction can be sustained. Medical evidence regarding bullet trajectory will not contradict trustworthy eyewitness testimony unless the medical evidence conclusively rules out the possibility of the circumstances described by eyewitnesses. In cases where FIR is suspected to be ante-dated and ante-timed, the court must carefully analyze the evidence supporting the prosecution case rather than discarding the entire prosecution version.
On this section: First Information Report definition and requirements - Court clarified that cryptic wireless message cannot be FIR; signed written information is required
-
Babubhai vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When two FIRs relate to incidents in close proximity of time and place, forming parts of same transaction as evidenced by common location, common victims/deaths, and interconnected scene-of-crime records, the second FIR must be quashed as it pertains to same occurrence. Further, where police investigation is demonstrably biased, one-sided, favoring one community over another, recording statements of only one party while excluding the other, the resulting charge sheet stands vitiated and must be quashed. In such exceptional circumstances where entire investigation is found to be tainted and unfair, violating constitutional rights under Articles 20 and 21, courts must direct fresh investigation de novo by an independent agency to prevent miscarriage of justice, as fair investigation is a fundamental constitutional right concomitant with fair trial.
On this section: Section 154: Definition and registration of FIR; Section 162: Recording statements as per FIR; Section 173: Police report and further investigation; Section 173(8): Further investigation after report; Section 482: Quashing of proceedings for abuse of process
-
State of A. P vs V. V. Panduranga Rao
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A cryptic telephonic message received by police about a cognizable offence cannot be treated as a valid First Information Report. The object of a telephonic message is merely to request the police to proceed to the place of occurrence and not to lodge a formal FIR. Only where detailed information is provided on telephone and the officer in charge is prima facie satisfied about the commission of a cognizable offence and proceeds from the police station after recording such information, does any subsequent statement amount to a Section 162 statement of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not an FIR. In evaluating evidence, courts must consider discrepancies between investigation statements and court testimony, and the absence of corroborative investigative measures.
On this section: Registration of FIR and procedure for recording information about cognizable offences
-
Mohd Khaja Nazeeruddin vs The State of Telangana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a complaint alleging cognizable offences is filed with police, the police have a mandatory duty to register a case following the procedure under Section 154 CrPC and in accordance with guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court. Once such registration is effected, the petitioner's grievance of police inaction stands redressed, and the court should direct the police to proceed with investigation strictly in accordance with law and file appropriate charge sheet or final report expeditiously.
On this section: Procedure for registration of FIR upon receipt of complaint alleging cognizable offence; police duty to register case following prescribed procedure
-
Kotha Venkata Ramesh Krishna vs The Station House Officer
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a private complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC is not supported by a sworn affidavit as mandated by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava, and where the allegations do not prima facie disclose commission of offence against the accused (particularly where essential ingredients like 'public view' for SC/ST Act offences or direct involvement for extortion charges are absent), and where the proceedings appear to be initiated with mala fide intention to harass, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings.
On this section: Requirement for sworn affidavit when filing private complaint before Magistrate
-
Kailash Kumar Singla vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an investigator discovers illegal gratification during investigation of a bribery case and subsequently discovers disproportionate assets of the accused, the registration of a separate FIR for disproportionate assets does not constitute abuse of investigative power or violation of Section 300 CrPC, provided the investigator conducts independent inquiry into the accused's income and expenditure. The disproportionate assets case is a distinct offense from the bribery case, and successive FIRs for such distinct offenses do not fall within the prohibition against double jeopardy or the principle established in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala.
On this section: Authority to register FIRs; cited in the context of discussing the limits of investigative power and prevention of abuse through successive FIRs
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… It was contended that under the settled position of law, once <span id="page-2-0"></span><sup>2</sup> (2014) 2 SCC 1 information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence is received, the police authorities are dutybound to register an FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. [3]( page-3-0) The State further argued that granting the appellant's request for a mandatory preliminary inquiry would amount to granting him a blanket protection against investigation, which is impermissible under law. The State also submitted that the appellant's reliance …
-
… scheme of MCOCA and of the CrPC in that persons could <sup>39</sup> (2007) 3 SCC 633 be charged with committing offences, following the completion of investigation: ―9. … The scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it clear that once the information of the commission of an offence is received under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the investigating authorities take up the investigation and file charge-sheet against whoever is found during the investigation to have been involved in the commission of such offence. There is no hard-and-fast rule that the first information report must always contain the names of …
-
… scheme of MCOCA and of the CrPC in that persons could <sup>39</sup> (2007) 3 SCC 633 be charged with committing offences, following the completion of investigation: ―9. … The scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it clear that once the information of the commission of an offence is received under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the investigating authorities take up the investigation and file charge-sheet against whoever is found during the investigation to have been involved in the commission of such offence. There is no hard-and-fast rule that the first information report must always contain the names of …
Questions about Section 154
What have the courts held on Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (12 Nov 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: FIR registration under s.154 is mandatory if the information discloses a cognizable offence; limited preliminary-inquiry exceptions. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 154, section 154 CRPC, section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (12 Nov 2013).
What should I read with Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 173 (Information in cognizable cases), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, commonly called fir, zero fir or first information report, and cited as CRPC 154, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.