Supreme Court on delay in lodging FIR / Complaint. Consequences of delay. What is not considered as delay? When is delay condoned?
1. Introduction
It is generally believed that a person aggrieved by any crime will immediately lodge a complaint with the police to bring the culprits to book. Yet there can be reasons for delay in lodging FIR/complaint.
2. Delay in lodging FIR: Probable Reasons
Complaint is the first step based on which FIR is registered. Infact it is the registration of FIR which sets the criminal justice machinery into motion. Therefore any delay in lodging FIR is bound to raise questions and doubts on truthfulness of complainant’s story, besides giving opportunity to the accused to derive benefit of doubt from such delay.
Though delay can prove fatal to the prosecution’s case, yet it is the facts and circumstances of each case which ultimately determine the impact of such delay. In several cases delay in lodging report becomes inconsequential. For example, cases where crimes go unreported for fear of social stigma, cases where crime goes undetected for several days or may be several months or longer, cases where the victim or witnesses may not have easy access to criminal justice machinery or where fear or undue influence keeps them away from raising their voice.
Also Read: Cross Cases / FIR – Supreme Court Guidelines
3. Supreme Court Judgments: Delay in lodging FIR
Through a few landmark judgments of Supreme Court, we will gain a better understanding of how delay in lodging FIR / complaint impacts a case.
Following major points will more or less cover the major issues involved when there is a delay in lodging FIR / complaint:
- Undue or unreasonable delay gives rise to suspicion.
- Plausible explanation for delay is a must.
- Delay creates opportunity for exaggerated and concocted story.
- Delay can be condoned where there is no motive to implicate the accused.
- Delayed FIR is not illegal.
- Delay does not automatically render the prosecution case doubtful.
- Delay puts the Court on its guard.
3.1 Undue or unreasonable delay gives rise to suspicion
Delay in lodging FIR is often viewed suspiciously, primarily because such delays can raise concerns about the authenticity and reliability of the complaint. Authorities may therefore question whether the FIR is fabricated or influenced by external factors.
In Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala, (1973) 3 SCC 114 the Supreme Court observed –
"First information report under Section 154 is not even considered a substantive piece of evidence. It can only be used to corroborate or contradict the informant's evidence in court. But this information when recorded is the basis of the case set up by the informant. It is very useful if recorded before there is time and opportunity to embellish or before the informant's memory fades. Undue or unreasonable delay in lodging the F.I.R., therefore, inevitably gives rise to suspicion which puts the court on guard to look for the possible motive and the explanation for the delay and consider its effect on the trustworthiness or otherwise of the prosecution version. In our opinion, no duration of time in the abstract can be fixed as reasonably for giving information of a crime to the police, the question of reasonable time being a matter for determination by the court in each case. Mere delay in lodging the first information report with the police is, therefore, not necessarily, as a matter of law, fatal to the prosecution. The effect of delay in doing so in the light of the plausibility of the explanation for the coming for such delay accordingly must fall for consideration on all the facts and circumstances of a given case."
3.2 Plausible explanation for delay is a must
A delayed FIR may raise doubts about the genuineness of the complaint. An explanation for the delay helps clarify whether there were genuine reasons, such as fear, lack of awareness, or other circumstances, that prevented the immediate reporting of the incident.
The courts may scrutinize the reasons for the delay, particularly if the complainant fails to provide a reasonable explanation. This could result in the FIR being treated with suspicion, or even dismissed, if the delay is deemed unjustifiable.
In Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi (2007) 12 SCC 641 the Supreme Court said:-
"In criminal trial one of the cardinal principles for the Court is to look for plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the report. Delay sometimes affords opportunity to the complainant to make deliberation upon the complaint and to make embellishment or even make fabrications. Delay defeats the chance of the unsoiled and untarnished version of the case to be presented before the Court at the earliest instance. That is why if there is delay in either coming before the police or before the Court, the Courts always view the allegations with suspicion and look for satisfactory explanation. If no such satisfaction is formed, the delay is treated as fatal to the prosecution case."
3.3 Delay creates opportunity for exaggerated and concocted story
If the complainant delays the filing of an FIR, it could give them time to create or alter evidence, witnesses, or narratives to fit a particular agenda. This could be a deliberate attempt to make the story appear more credible or convincing to the police or courts. For example, they may add details, modify the timeline, or even create false witnesses to strengthen their case.
Sometimes, a complainant may initially be unsure of what happened or may be influenced by external parties (e.g., family members, friends, or other vested interests). As time passes, they may decide to alter the story or invent new details to support their case, leading to a delay in the FIR. This delay gives them time to shape the narrative.
Sometimes, the complainant may initially be afraid to report the crime, but later, after receiving pressure from certain groups or after realizing potential benefits, they may decide to lodge a delayed complaint with a fabricated version of events.
In Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1973 SC 501) said –
"First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating, the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of 'the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene, of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained."
3.4 Delay can be condoned where there is no motive to implicate the accused
The motive to implicate the accused plays a significant role in determining whether a delay in lodging FIR should be condoned.
In some cases, a person may delay lodging an FIR because they want to implicate someone, perhaps in retaliation for a personal dispute. The delayed complaint might be part of a broader plan to falsely implicate someone or cause harm to a person’s reputation, particularly if the complainant is unsure of the consequences of filing an immediate FIR. If that be so, then delay in lodging FIR / complaint cannot be condoned.
However, if there is no motive to falsely implicate the accused or to manipulate the facts, the court or authorities may be more inclined to condone the delay, especially if the complainant can provide a reasonable and credible explanation for not reporting the crime promptly. Thus, a complainant who is not driven by revenge or a desire to harm the accused is likely to have their delay condoned more easily.
In Ram Jag and others v. The State of U.P. (AIR 1974 SC 606) the Supreme Court said –
"It is true that witnesses cannot be called upon to explain every hour's delay and a common sense view has to be taken in ascertaining whether the First Information Report was, lodged after an undue delay so as to afford enough scope for manipulating evidence. Whether the delay is so long as to throw a cloud of suspicion on the seeds of the prosecution must depend upon a variety of factors which would vary from case to case. Even a long delay in filing report of an occurrence can be condoned if the witnesses on whose evidence the prosecution relies have no motive for implicating the accused. On the other hand, prompt filing of the report is not an unmistakable guarantee of the truthfulness of the version of the prosecution."
3.5 Delayed FIR is not illegal
As per Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), there is no strict requirement for an FIR to be filed immediately. However, any delay in registering an FIR must be satisfactorily explained. If there is an undue delay without proper justification, it may raise concerns about the authenticity of the complaint.
Therefore, a delayed FIR (First Information Report) is not necessarily illegal, but it must be justifiable, and law enforcement may scrutinize the circumstances surrounding it.
In Ravinder Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab, (2001) 7SCC 690 the Apex Court held –
"It has to be remembered that law has not fixed any time for lodging the FIR. Hence a delayed FIR is not illegal. Of course a prompt and immediate lodging of the FIR is the ideal as that would give the prosecution a twin advantage. First is that it affords commencement of the investigation without any time lapse. Second is that it expels the opportunity for any possible concoction of a false version. Barring these two plus points for a promptly lodged FIR the demerits of the delayed FIR cannot operate as fatal to any prosecution case. It cannot be overlooked that even a promptly lodged FIR is not an unreserved guarantee for the genuineness of the version incorporated therein. When there is criticism on the ground that FIR in a case was delayed the court has to look at the reason why there was such a delay. There can be a variety of genuine causes for FIR lodgment to get delayed. Rural people might be ignorant of the need for informing the police of a crime without any lapse of time. This kind of unconversantness is not too uncommon among urban people also. They might not immediately think of going to the police station. Another possibility is due to lack of adequate transport facilities for the informers to reach the police station. The third, which is a quite common bearing, is that the kith and kin of the deceased might take some appreciable time to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind or sedativeness of temper for moving to the police station for the purpose of furnishing the requisite information. Yet another cause is the persons who are supposed to give such information themselves could be so physically impaired that the police had to reach them on getting some nebulous information about the incident."
3.6 Delay in lodging FIR does not automatically render the prosecution case doubtful
Delays are often evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and courts generally focus on whether the delay has caused harm or unfairness to the defendant or whether it is justified by factors like complexity of the case, the time needed for investigation, or other legitimate reasons.
In principle, the mere passage of time between the commission of an offense and the prosecution’s presentation of the case does not automatically undermine the credibility or strength of the case.
In Amar Singh vs Balwinder Singh & Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 518, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held –
"There is no hard and fast rule that any delay in lodging the FIR would automatically render the prosecution case doubtful. It necessarily depends upon facts and circumstances of each case whether there has been any such delay in lodging the FIR which may cast doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case and for this a host of circumstances like the condition of the first informant, the nature of injuries sustained, the number of victims, the efforts made to provide medical aid to them, the distance of the hospital and the police station, etc. have to be taken into consideration. There is no mathematical formula by which an inference may be drawn either way merely on account of delay in lodging of the FIR."
3.7 Delay puts the Court on its guard
While a delay in lodging an FIR can certainly alert the court and lead to scrutiny, the court will consider the reasons for the delay and the surrounding facts before making a final judgment.
In the judgment of Sahebrao & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 9 SCC 794 the Supreme Court said –
"The settled principle of law of this Court is that delay in filing FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case and discard it. The delay in lodging the FIR would put the Court on its guard to search if any plausible explanation has been offered and if offered whether it is satisfactory."