Error In FIR Due To Lack Of Specific Date & Time Of Incident Can't Be Rectified During Investigation: Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava termed the Chief Judicial Magistrate Mirzapur's act of taking cognizance of the charge sheet (on December 1, 2023)—despite the FIR lacking crucial details such as the specific date, time, and witnesses—as "highly shocking".

The Court observed that the CJM again took cognizance, disregarding the missing vital details from the FIR, even though the revision court had remitted the matter to the magistrate to be decided afresh.

It may be noted that the matter was remitted back to the Magistrate concerned after the petitioner filed a criminal revision challenging the magistrate's earlier order (passed on October 1, 2018), who had taken cognizance of the charge sheet that lacked the aforementioned essential details.

The Court observed that the FIR in the matter lacks crucial details, particularly the date and time. The Single Judge further emphasized that the magistrate must consider these factors before taking cognizance under Section 190 of the CrPC.

“…it is much and more important at the time when the matter has already been once remitted back by learned revisional court for considering as fresh before learned court of Magistrate by way of setting aside the order passed under section 190 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner, it is highly shocking for the Court that once again, although certain sections have been reduced, cognizance has been taken up and there is no recital regarding non availability of specific date and time which is the essential ingredient which must be available in the narration of the FIR,” the Court noted.

In this case, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner (Jagat Singh) under Sections 143, 341, 504, and 506 of the IPC in connection with a dispute regarding the right to way.

A chargesheet was filed in the case, on which the concerned magistrate took cognizance on October 1, 2018 (first cognizance order). The petitioner challenged this order by filing a revision plea, which the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mirzapur allowed (on July 20, 2022), setting aside the Magistrate's order and remitting the matter for a fresh decision.

However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance again on December 1, 2023 (second cognizance order/impugned order), which was again challenged before the revision court. His challenge was rejected this time, and the Magistrate's order was affirmed (on August 14, 2024).

Challenging both the revisional court's order and the CJM's cognizance-taking order, the petitioner moved the High Court, stating that the FIR lacks essential details such as the specific date, time, and witnesses, which are crucial for any information filed under Section 154 CrPC. Despite this, it was argued that the CJM took cognizance mechanically, and the revisional court wrongly affirmed this order.

Finding both the orders to be highly illegal and perverse, the Court allowed the petition while setting aside the entire case proceeding.

However, the Court did grant liberty to respondent No. 2 to submit information regarding any incident, if it occurred, with a specific date and time to the appropriate authority for redressal of his grievance.