HC: Contents of FIR cannot be amended

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, July 7

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the contents of an FIR could not be amended. The ruling came in a case where the Punjab Police added new facts to the FIR, compelling the High Court to observe that such a course of action was alien to criminal law.

Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan asserted certain new facts on the basis of complaints were added to the FIR by registering two daily diary reports, even though the procedure was “unknown to the criminal law”.

“There is no such provision in CrPC for amending the contents of the FIR, where new allegations are with regard to different transactions...,” Justice Sangwan added. The High Court was hearing a petition filed against the state of Punjab for grant of anticipatory bail in an FIR registered on June 18 for cheating and other offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC at the Batala City Police Station.

The court on the previous date of hearing was told by the counsel for the petitioners that there was a total mismatch between the contents of the FIR and the investigation being carried out on its basis.

It was further contended that the FIR talked about the purchase of jewellery by the petitioners on behalf of a third person and giving a cheque to the complainant on his behalf. But the investigation talked of an entirely different issue regarding the issuance of power of attorney in favour of the petitioners by the complainant.

Appearing on the complainant’s behalf, another counsel has submitted an amendment was carried out in the FIR by way of two “rapats” or DDRs. These “rapats” were physically handed over to the Reader of the court while the matter was being heard through video-conferencing. However, the same was inadvertently not noticed as the documents were not brought to the notice of the court at the time of deciding an application.

Referring to the facts of the case, Justice Sangwan added that the court was of the opinion that the entire case was based upon the documentary evidence for which the custodial interrogation of the petitioners was not required.

Allowing the petition, Justice Sangwan directed the petitioners to be released on interim bail to join the investigation.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.