Skip to main content

How can an accused obtain a copy of the FIR?

Image


Section 154 of CrPC Provides procedure for registration of FIR and makes it clear that informant shall be entitled to get one copy of FIR free of cost but no such provision is made in relation to accused. Further, section 207 of CrPC Provides that copy of FIR shall be supplied to accused along with charge sheet and other documents after filing of charge sheet under section 173 of CrPC. Section 173(7) stipulates that investigating officer may supply the copy of FIR to accused according to his own convenience after filing of charge sheet. Above mentioned provisions, where an accused is entitled to get a copy of FIR, can only be attracted after filing of charge sheet. There is no specific provision in the CrPC mandating supply of the FIR to the accused person before the filing of the charge sheet or immediately after registration of the FIR. 


On 06/12/2010, Hon’ble Delhi High court while dealing with a criminal writ petition, in a case of Court on its own motion vs State, directed that - 

* An accused is entitled to get a copy of the First Information Report at an earlier stage than as prescribed under Section 207 of the CrPC. 

* An accused can submit an application through his representative/agent/parokar for grant of a certified copy before the concerned police officer or to the Superintendent of Police on payment of such fee which is payable for obtaining such a copy from the court. On such application being made, the copy shall be supplied within twenty-four hours.

* On an application being filed for certified copy on behalf of the accused, the same shall be given by the court concerned within two inworking days.

* The copies of the FIR, unless reasons recorded regard being had to the nature of the offence that the same is sensitive in nature, should be uploaded on the Delhi Police website within twenty-four hours of lodging of the FIR so that the accused or any person connected with the same can download the FIR and file appropriate application before the court as per law for redressal of his grievances.

* In case a copy of the FIR is not provided on the ground of sensitive nature of the case, a person grieved by the said action, after disclosing his identity, can submit a representation with the Commissioner of Police who shall constitute a committee of three high officers and the committee shall deal with the said grievance within three days from the date of receipt of the representation and communicate it to the grieved person.

* In cases wherein decisions have been taken not to give copies of the FIR regard being had to the sensitive nature of the case, it will be open to the accused/his authorized representative/parokar to file an application for grant of certified copy before the court to which the FIR has been sent and the same shall be provided in quite promptitude by the concerned court not beyond three days of the submission of the application.

Later, on 07/09/2016, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Youth Bar Association vs Union of India, reiterated the position of law which was established by the above mentioned judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in indelible words.


(Note - former chief justice of Delhi High Court and then Supreme Court Deepak Misra has authored both the above-discussed judgments) 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Advocates Vs. CAs/CSs/CMAs

This article deals with the exclusive right to practise law and tribunal representation and the principles relating to a Harmonious Construction of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Companies Act, 2013 Introduction  The ongoing controversy concerning the right of non-advocate professionals, namely Chartered Accountants(CAs), Company Secretaries(CSs), and Cost and Management Accountants(CMAs), to appear and argue matters before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) raises fundamental questions touching the statutory monopoly over the practice of law in India. This post examines the competing statutory claims under the Advocates Act, 1961 and Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013, applies the doctrine of harmonious construction, and concludes that Section 432 does not, and constitutionally cannot, confer any independent or parallel right to practise law upon non-advocates before tribunals. Background of the Dispute Recently, t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Requirements for Criminal Liability under Sections 406 and 420 IPC

The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Ashok Kumar Jain v. The State of Gujarat and Another (2025 INSC 614), delivered on May 1, 2025, is a significant exposition on the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), to quash a First Information Report (FIR) in cases where allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are deemed to be a misuse of criminal process for civil disputes. The judgment meticulously analyzes the alleged offenses' legal ingredients, the commercial transaction's factual matrix, and the documentary evidence, ultimately concluding that the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process. Factual Background The case arises from a commercial transaction between the appellant, Ashok Kumar Jain, a director of Maayu Import and Export Ltd., a Sri Lankan company, and the second respondent, a proprietor of Ansh Prints, a textile business in Surat, Gujara...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inter-State Arrests and the Cost of Ignoring Due Process

The Delhi High Court’s judgment authored by Dr. Justice Murlidhar, as he then was, in Sandeep Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), WP (Crl.) 2189/2018, neutral citation: 2019:DHC:6920-DB , is a clear reminder that problems in policing often arise not because the law is unclear, but because basic legal safeguards are ignored. The case shows how easily police action can cross constitutional limits when procedure is treated as a technicality rather than a duty. When a Complaint Turns into Illegal Detention   The case arose from an interfaith marriage between two adults who married of their own free will. The woman’s family opposed the marriage, and soon an FIR alleging kidnapping under Section 366 IPC was lodged in Uttar Pradesh. Acting on this, UP Police travelled to Delhi, entered the JNU campus, and took both the husband and wife back to Ghaziabad. None of the basic legal steps was followed. The local Delhi Police were not informed. No proper diary entries were made. The husband was not ...
Post a Comment
Read more