Initiation of a criminal case: FIR, Zero FIR, preliminary enquiry, investigation and complaint

1. Information in cognizable cases: section 173 (old s.154)

Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where the offence is committed, may be given orally or by electronic communication to an officer in charge of a police station (s.173(1)).

• If oral, it is reduced to writing, read over to the informant and signed by him.
• If by electronic communication (an e-FIR), it is taken on record on being signed within three days by the person giving it.
• The substance is entered in the book prescribed by the State Government.
• Where a woman reports an offence under BNS ss.64–71, 74–79 or 124, it is recorded by a woman police officer or any woman officer. If she is mentally or physically disabled, it is recorded at her residence or a place of her choice, with an interpreter or special educator, and videographed, and her statement is recorded by a Magistrate under s.183(6)(a).
• A copy is given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant or the victim (s.173(2)).

The FIR is not substantive evidence. It sets the criminal law in motion and can be used to corroborate or contradict its maker. Delay in lodging it is not fatal in itself but must be explained.

Registration is mandatory. In Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., 2013 INSC 748, (2014) 2 SCC 1, a Constitution Bench held that registration of an FIR is mandatory where the information discloses a cognizable offence, and that no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a case. It allowed a limited preliminary inquiry, to be finished within seven days, only in categories such as matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption and cases of abnormal delay. An officer who fails to register must face action.

2. Zero FIR

A Zero FIR is an FIR registered by a police station that has no territorial jurisdiction over the place of the offence. It is given a “zero” number and then transferred to the police station that has jurisdiction, which registers it afresh and investigates. The practice grew up after the Justice Verma Committee report of 2013 and was supported by police directions; the BNSS puts it on a statutory footing with the words “irrespective of the area where the offence is committed” in s.173(1). The expression “Zero FIR” itself does not appear in the section.

• Purpose: the victim, often of a sexual offence or an offence during a journey, is not sent from station to station while evidence disappears.
• Effect: the officer cannot refuse to record information of a cognizable offence on the ground that it happened outside his station limits. Section 175(2) adds that no proceeding of a police officer shall be called in question on the ground that he was not empowered to investigate the case.

3. Preliminary enquiry: section 173(3) (new)

For a cognizable offence punishable with three years or more but less than seven years, the officer in charge may, with the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, and considering the nature and gravity of the offence:

• conduct a preliminary enquiry, to be finished within fourteen days, to see whether a prima facie case exists; or
• proceed with investigation when a prima facie case exists.

This is a statutory departure from the strict rule in Lalita Kumari for the middle band of offences. For offences of seven years and above, and below three years, registration remains the rule.

4. Remedies when the police refuse to register

• Superintendent of Police (s.173(4)): the aggrieved person may send the substance of the information in writing and by post to the SP, who, if satisfied that a cognizable offence is disclosed, investigates himself or directs a subordinate to investigate.
• Magistrate (s.175(3), old s.156(3)): failing action by the SP, the person may apply to a Magistrate empowered under s.210. The application must be supported by an affidavit, and the Magistrate may make such inquiry as he thinks necessary and consider the submission of the police officer before ordering investigation. The affidavit requirement codifies Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015). In Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., 2007 INSC 1243, (2008) 2 SCC 409, the Court held that a person whose FIR is not registered should use these remedies before approaching the High Court under Article 226.
• Complaint to the Magistrate under s.223.
• The officer who refuses may be liable under BNS s.199(c) where the information relates to the offences listed there (sexual offences and acid attack).

5. Non-cognizable information: section 174 (old s.155)

The officer enters the substance in the prescribed book, refers the informant to the Magistrate, and forwards the daily diary report of such cases to the Magistrate fortnightly (s.174(1), new). He cannot investigate without the Magistrate's order (s.174(2)); with an order he has all powers except arrest without warrant (s.174(3)). If a case involves two or more offences and at least one is cognizable, the whole case is treated as cognizable (s.174(4)).

6. Investigation: sections 175–193

“Investigation” covers all proceedings for collecting evidence by a police officer (s.2(1)(l)). Its stages, as described by the Supreme Court in the CrPC cases, are: proceeding to the spot; ascertaining facts and circumstances; discovery and arrest of the suspect; collection of evidence by examining persons, searching places and seizing things; and forming an opinion whether there is a case to place before a Magistrate, followed by the police report.

• Power to investigate (s.175(1)): the officer in charge may investigate any cognizable case without a Magistrate's order. The SP may require a DSP to investigate, given the nature and gravity of the offence.
• Complaint against a public servant (s.175(4), new): the Magistrate may order investigation only after a report from the superior officer and considering the public servant's version.
• Procedure (s.176): report to the Magistrate; proceed to the spot. The rape victim's statement is recorded at her residence or place of choice, as far as practicable by a woman officer, and may be recorded by audio-video means including a mobile phone. For offences of seven years or more, a forensic expert must visit the scene and the process be videographed (s.176(3)).
• Attendance of witnesses (s.179): no male under 15 or above 60, no woman, and no mentally or physically disabled or acutely ill person is required to attend anywhere other than his or her residence.
• Examination of witnesses (s.180, old s.161): may be recorded by audio-video means. Statements are not signed and may be used only to contradict the witness (s.181).
• Statements and confessions before a Magistrate (s.183, old s.164).
• Search (s.185) and videography of search and seizure (s.105).
• Remand (s.187, old s.167): see the note on arrest.
• Case diary (s.192).
• Police report (s.193, old s.173): investigation into rape and specified POCSO offences to be completed within two months; report may be sent electronically; the informant or victim must be told of progress within ninety days; further investigation during trial needs the Court's permission and must be completed within ninety days, extendable by the Court (s.193(9)).

7. Complaint

A complaint (s.2(1)(h)) is an allegation to a Magistrate, oral or in writing, that some person has committed an offence, made so that the Magistrate takes action. It need not be in any form; it must disclose facts constituting an offence. It can be made by anyone, unless a statute restricts the right (for example, ss.215, 219 and 222 require complaints by particular persons). A police report is not a complaint, except a report that reveals only a non-cognizable offence. The Magistrate examines the complainant on oath (s.223), and the Unit II note follows the complaint from there.

8. Problem

‘A’ approaches the officer in charge of a police station to file an FIR regarding a cognizable offence. The officer refuses, saying the offence was not committed within the jurisdiction of his station. Can he refuse on this ground? What can A do? (February 2025; a similar problem in June 2025.)

Issue. Whether territorial jurisdiction is a ground for refusing to record information of a cognizable offence, and what remedies A has.

Law. Section 173(1) BNSS requires every information of a cognizable offence to be recorded “irrespective of the area where the offence is committed”. Lalita Kumari makes registration mandatory where a cognizable offence is disclosed. Remedies lie under s.173(4) (the SP) and s.175(3) (the Magistrate, on an application with affidavit).

Application. The officer's only objection is jurisdiction. That is exactly what the words “irrespective of the area” exclude. He must record a Zero FIR, give A a free copy, and transfer it to the police station having jurisdiction. If the offence fell in the 3–7 year band, he could at most seek the DSP's permission for a preliminary enquiry under s.173(3); he still could not refuse on the ground of territory.

Conclusion. The refusal is illegal. A may send the substance of the information in writing by post to the Superintendent of Police under s.173(4); if that fails, apply to the Magistrate under s.175(3) with an affidavit, or file a complaint under s.223. A writ petition is a last resort (Sakiri Vasu).

How this is examined

Short notes on “Zero FIR” (January 2026), “First Information Report” (August 2024), “Complaint” (February 2025) and “Initiation of a criminal case” (June 2025), and the refusal-to-register problem (February and June 2025). For a 10-mark answer on investigation, follow the stages in section 6 and mark each new BNSS feature (e-FIR, preliminary enquiry, forensic visit, videography, ninety-day progress report).