TL;DR
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, codifies the concept of Zero FIR — the registration of a First Information Report at any police station regardless of territorial jurisdiction — under Section 173(1). Previously, Zero FIR was a judicial practice direction without explicit statutory backing. However, the BNSS also introduces a controversial preliminary inquiry provision under Section 173(3), which allows police to delay FIR registration for up to 14 days for cognizable offences punishable with 3-7 years imprisonment. This directly conflicts with the Supreme Court's mandatory registration principle in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014), which required immediate FIR registration for cognizable offences and limited preliminary inquiry to 7 days.
Overview: The Old Position
Section 154 CrPC — FIR Registration
Section 154(1) CrPC required that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, given orally or in writing to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing and signed by the informant. A copy was to be given to the informant free of cost.
Zero FIR — Judicial Practice Direction
The concept of Zero FIR — registering an FIR at a police station that does not have territorial jurisdiction over the area where the offence occurred — was:
- Not explicitly mentioned in CrPC: The Code did not use the term "Zero FIR" or provide a mechanism for cross-jurisdictional FIR registration.
- Developed through practice: Police administrative guidelines and judicial directions established the practice, particularly after incidents where victims were turned away from police stations on jurisdictional grounds.
- Reinforced by the Justice Verma Committee (2013): Following the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, the Committee recommended that every police station must register an FIR regardless of jurisdiction and then transfer it to the appropriate station.
Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP (2014)
The five-judge Constitution Bench laid down binding principles:
- Mandatory registration: Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC if information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
- Preliminary inquiry exception: If the information does not clearly disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the need for verification, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted — but only for 7 days.
- Categories for preliminary inquiry: Matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption, and cases with delayed reporting.
- Accountability: All preliminary inquiries must be reflected in the General Diary/Station Diary with reasons.
Section 173 BNSS — FIR and Zero FIR
Section 173(1) — Mandatory Registration and Zero FIR
Section 173(1) BNSS codifies the mandatory FIR registration requirement:
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 and shall be reduced to writing by the officer in charge of the police station.
Key additions over Section 154 CrPC:
- "Irrespective of the area where the offence is committed": This phrase statutorily mandates Zero FIR. Any police station must now register an FIR regardless of territorial jurisdiction.
- Electronic communication: FIR information can now be given through electronic means (e-FIR), not just orally or in writing.
- Transfer requirement: After Zero FIR registration, the FIR must be transferred to the police station having jurisdiction within 15 days.
Section 173(2) — Information by Electronic Means
Section 173(2) provides that the information may also be given by electronic communication. This codifies e-FIR, enabling citizens to lodge information online or through designated electronic platforms.
Section 173(3) — The Controversial Preliminary Inquiry Provision
Section 173(3) introduces a new preliminary inquiry framework:
For cognizable offences punishable with imprisonment of three years or more but less than seven years, the police officer may, with prior approval of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP):
- Conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists, OR
- Proceed to investigate if a prima facie case is disclosed
The preliminary inquiry must be completed within 14 days.
Detailed Comparison
FIR Registration Framework
| Feature | Section 154 CrPC | Section 173 BNSS |
|---|---|---|
| Mandatory registration | Yes (per Lalita Kumari) | Yes (codified) |
| Zero FIR | Not explicitly provided; judicial direction | Explicitly codified — "irrespective of area" |
| Mode of information | Oral or written | Oral, written, or electronic communication |
| e-FIR | Not provided | Codified under Section 173(2) |
| Transfer timeline (Zero FIR) | No statutory timeline | 15 days for transfer to jurisdictional station |
| Preliminary inquiry | 7 days (per Lalita Kumari) | 14 days (for 3-7 year offences, with DySP approval) |
| Free copy to informant | Yes | Yes |
The Lalita Kumari Conflict
The most significant tension between the old law (as interpreted by the Supreme Court) and the new BNSS is in the preliminary inquiry provision:
| Feature | Lalita Kumari (2014) | Section 173(3) BNSS |
|---|---|---|
| When is preliminary inquiry allowed? | Only when information does not clearly disclose cognizable offence | For cognizable offences punishable with 3-7 years — even when cognizable offence is disclosed |
| Duration | 7 days maximum | 14 days maximum |
| Approval required | Not specified | DySP or above |
| Categories | Matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption, delayed reporting | Any cognizable offence punishable with 3-7 years |
Critical conflict: Lalita Kumari held that FIR registration is mandatory when a cognizable offence is disclosed — no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such cases. Section 173(3) BNSS allows preliminary inquiry even when a cognizable offence is reported, provided the offence falls within the 3-7 year punishment band. This directly contradicts the Constitution Bench's ratio.
Resolution: Courts will need to determine whether Section 173(3) can override a Constitution Bench decision. The Supreme Court has not yet directly addressed this conflict, but several High Courts have flagged the tension.
The e-FIR Framework
Codification of Electronic Filing
Section 173(2) BNSS establishes the statutory basis for electronic FIR filing. Key aspects:
- Mode: Information can be communicated through electronic means — email, mobile applications, designated web portals.
- Verification: The informant's identity must be verified, and the electronic information must be subsequently signed or verified within a prescribed time.
- Legal status: An e-FIR has the same legal validity as a physically registered FIR.
State Implementation
Several states have launched e-FIR portals:
- Online FIR portals for specific offence categories (typically property offences, vehicle theft, lost documents)
- Mobile applications linked to state police systems
- Integration with the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS)
The e-FIR provision is particularly significant for Zero FIR — it eliminates the practical barrier of physically visiting a distant police station to register an FIR for offences committed in another jurisdiction.
Practical Workflow: Zero FIR Under BNSS
Information given: Victim/informant provides information about a cognizable offence at any police station, by any means (oral, written, electronic).
Zero FIR registered: The police station registers the FIR with a zero serial number (Zero FIR), regardless of jurisdiction.
Copy provided: A free copy of the FIR is given to the informant.
Transfer: Within 15 days, the Zero FIR is transferred to the police station having territorial jurisdiction over the area where the offence was committed.
Investigation: The jurisdictional police station takes over investigation, assigning a regular FIR number.
New Provisions with No Old Equivalent
| Provision | Section | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Zero FIR codified | Section 173(1) — "irrespective of the area" | First statutory mandate for cross-jurisdictional FIR registration |
| e-FIR | Section 173(2) | Electronic communication for FIR filing — entirely new |
| Transfer timeline | Section 173(1) | 15-day mandatory transfer of Zero FIR to jurisdictional station |
| Preliminary inquiry (3-7 year offences) | Section 173(3) | New provision allowing 14-day inquiry with DySP approval |
Practical Checklist for Practitioners
- Advise clients that they can now register an FIR at any police station — Zero FIR is a statutory right under Section 173(1) BNSS
- If police refuse to register an FIR, cite Section 173(1) and the statutory mandate — refusal is actionable
- For e-FIR filing, verify whether the state has a functioning electronic filing portal and the categories of offences accepted
- When police invoke Section 173(3) to delay FIR registration through preliminary inquiry, challenge this if the offence clearly discloses a cognizable offence — invoke Lalita Kumari principles
- Verify that the DySP-level approval for preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) has been properly obtained and recorded
- Track the 14-day preliminary inquiry deadline — if exceeded, demand immediate FIR registration
- For Zero FIR cases, follow up to ensure transfer to the jurisdictional police station within the 15-day statutory timeline
- Preserve electronic evidence of e-FIR submission (confirmation emails, portal screenshots) as proof of timely reporting
- Note that Section 173(3) only applies to offences punishable with 3-7 years — offences punishable with 7+ years or less than 3 years are not covered by the preliminary inquiry provision
Recent judicial developments (post-July 2024)
The following cases from the Veritect Legal Intelligence database illustrate how courts are interpreting FIR registration and Zero FIR provisions under the new BNSS framework:
XXX v. State of Kerala — First Supreme Court Ruling on Section 175 BNSS (27 January 2026)
Court: Supreme Court of India | Judges: Dipankar Datta, Manmohan | Result: Appeal disposed; first authoritative interpretation of Section 175 BNSS
In this landmark judgment — the Supreme Court's first authoritative pronouncement on Section 175 BNSS — a woman alleged sexual assault by police officers who visited her in connection with a property dispute. After police failed to register an FIR and a preliminary inquiry declared her allegations untrue, she approached the JMFC under Section 210 read with Section 173(4) BNSS. The Supreme Court held that sub-section (4) of Section 175 BNSS is neither a standalone provision nor a proviso to sub-section (3), but a "procedural adjunct" that must be read harmoniously with sub-section (3). The Court provided a detailed guide for judicial magistrates on invoking Section 175(4), establishing that written complaints supported by affidavit are required even for complaints against public servants. This case directly addresses the interplay between FIR registration under Section 173 and the public servant protection framework under Section 175.
Veritect reference: Diary_8626-2025_Judgment
Amit Kumar v. Union of India — IIT Delhi Suicides (24 March 2025)
Court: Supreme Court of India | Judges: J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan | Result: FIR registration directed under Lalita Kumari principles
The Supreme Court directed Delhi Police to register FIRs following suicides of Scheduled Caste students at IIT Delhi, holding that police cannot substitute mandatory FIR registration with a preliminary inquiry under Section 174 CrPC. The Court reaffirmed Lalita Kumari principles, extending them to the BNSS framework: FIR registration under Section 173 BNSS is mandatory upon any allegation of a cognizable offence and cannot be bypassed by preliminary inquiries. This ruling directly strengthens the mandatory registration principle codified in Section 173(1) BNSS and reinforces the tension with Section 173(3)'s preliminary inquiry provision.
Veritect reference: police_cannot_substitute_fir_with_preliminary
Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (28 March 2025)
Court: Supreme Court of India | Judges: Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan | Result: FIR quashed
The Supreme Court quashed an FIR registered under BNS provisions and held that police must observe the discretion granted under Section 173(3) BNSS to avoid mechanically registering FIRs in cases involving expressive conduct. This is the first Supreme Court ruling directly recognizing Section 173(3) BNSS as a filtering mechanism — police should use preliminary inquiry rather than immediately registering FIRs in speech-related offences. This creates an interesting counterpoint to the Amit Kumar ruling: while mandatory registration applies for cognizable offences, Section 173(3) provides a legitimate filter for the 3-7 year offence category.
Veritect reference: Diary_3511-2025_Judgment
Khushi Sharma — Delhi HC Directs Zero FIR Under BNSS (16 May 2025)
Court: Delhi High Court | Judge: Anup Jairam Bhambhani | Result: Delhi Police directed to immediately register Zero FIR
The Delhi High Court directed Delhi Police to immediately register a Zero FIR under Section 103 BNS and transfer all collected material to the jurisdictional police station. The Court held that FIR registration under Section 173 BNSS is mandatory when information — even if incomplete or ambiguous — discloses a prima facie cognizable offence. The Court explicitly held that police cannot demand conclusive forensic or medical evidence before registering an FIR, and that inquest proceedings under Section 194 BNSS cannot delay FIR registration. This is the first reported Delhi HC ruling directly applying the Zero FIR provisions under BNSS.
Veritect reference: DLHC010026032025_1_2025-05-16
Emerging patterns
Based on available post-July 2024 court orders:
The Lalita Kumari framework survives in the BNSS era: Both the Supreme Court (Amit Kumar) and Delhi High Court (Khushi Sharma) have confirmed that mandatory FIR registration for cognizable offences continues under Section 173(1) BNSS, with Lalita Kumari principles fully applicable.
Section 173(3) as a speech-offence filter: The Imran Pratapgadhi ruling recognizes Section 173(3) as a legitimate preliminary inquiry mechanism for speech-related offences, potentially mitigating the Lalita Kumari conflict for the 3-7 year offence category.
Zero FIR is being enforced by courts: The Khushi Sharma ruling demonstrates that courts will compel police to register Zero FIRs under BNSS and will not accept jurisdictional excuses for delay.
Section 175 BNSS creates new procedural complexity: The XXX v. State of Kerala ruling introduces a new procedural layer for complaints against public servants that intersects with the FIR registration framework — judicial magistrates must navigate both Section 173 and Section 175 when public servants are accused.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Zero FIR now mandatory under law?
Yes. Section 173(1) BNSS mandates FIR registration "irrespective of the area where the offence is committed." This codifies Zero FIR as a statutory requirement, not merely a judicial practice direction. Any police station must register the FIR and transfer it to the jurisdictional station within 15 days.
Can police refuse to register an FIR and conduct a preliminary inquiry instead?
For offences punishable with 3-7 years, Section 173(3) allows a preliminary inquiry of up to 14 days with DySP approval. For offences punishable with less than 3 years or more than 7 years, no preliminary inquiry is permitted — immediate FIR registration is mandatory. Even for the 3-7 year category, the police must register the FIR immediately if the information clearly discloses a cognizable offence (per Lalita Kumari).
What is an e-FIR and how does it work?
An e-FIR is a First Information Report filed through electronic communication — email, mobile application, or web portal. Section 173(2) BNSS gives e-FIRs the same legal validity as physically registered FIRs. The informant's identity must be subsequently verified, and the electronic filing must be confirmed within the prescribed time.
Does the 14-day preliminary inquiry conflict with Lalita Kumari?
Yes. The Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari held that FIR registration is mandatory when a cognizable offence is disclosed, with preliminary inquiry limited to 7 days only when the information is ambiguous. Section 173(3) BNSS allows 14-day preliminary inquiry for cognizable offences punishable with 3-7 years. This conflict has not been finally resolved by the Supreme Court.
What happens if the police station fails to transfer the Zero FIR within 15 days?
The BNSS mandates transfer within 15 days but does not specify consequences for delay. The informant can file a complaint with the Superintendent of Police or approach the Magistrate under Section 175 BNSS (corresponding to Section 156(3) CrPC) for directions.