Zero FIR — Mandatory Provisions Under BNSS vs CrPC

In India, Section 173(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) lets anyone report a cognizable offence at any police station "irrespective of the area where the offence is committed", orally or electronically — the basis of a "Zero FIR". Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) had no such words. The Sanhita fixes no transfer deadline.

At a glance

What "Zero FIR" means in the text

"Zero FIR" is not a term in the Sanhita; a whitespace-normalised search of the Gazette text returns no occurrence of "zero". The concept rests on nine words in Section 173(1):

"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, and if given— (i) orally, it shall be reduced to writing ... (ii) by electronic communication, it shall be taken on record by him on being signed within three days by the person giving it," — BNSS s.173(1) (extract)

"Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant;" — CrPC s.154(1) (extract)

What changed:

• Expanded — place. "irrespective of the area where the offence is committed" is new. On a reading of the text, an officer in charge cannot treat the place of the offence as a reason not to record the information.
• Expanded — mode. Information "may be given orally or by electronic communication". The CrPC dealt with oral information and information "given in writing".
• Identical — the recording duty for oral information. It "shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant", and signed by the informant.
• Minor edit — the book. The substance is entered in a book kept "in such form as the State Government may by rules prescribe"; the CrPC said "may prescribe".

No transfer rule. The Sanhita does not say how or when information about an offence committed elsewhere is to be sent to the police station having jurisdiction. On a whitespace-normalised search, "fifteen days" appears only in Sections 187, 346, 480(1) and 483, none of which concerns FIRs, and "transfer the" appears only in Section 251(1)(a) (transfer of a case by a Sessions Judge). Any fixed transfer period stated as a BNSS rule does not come from the Sanhita.

Why the case still moves. Section 175(1) lets an officer in charge investigate, without a Magistrate's order, only a cognizable case "which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIV". Chapter XIV places trial ordinarily where the offence was committed (Section 197), with alternatives where the place is uncertain, the offence spans areas, or its consequence ensues elsewhere (Sections 198–199). Section 175(2) adds that no proceeding of a police officer "shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate". For the CrPC position on sending the FIR onwards, see Satvinder Kaur below.

The section-level comparison is on Section 173 BNSS: Zero FIR and e-FIR and Section 154 CrPC vs Section 173 BNSS.

Electronic information — Section 173(1)(ii)

Three things are in the text; nothing more is.

1. Mode. "by electronic communication". The Sanhita names no channel — e-mail, app or portal — so which channels a State accepts depends on its rules and systems. This guide has not verified State arrangements.
2. Signature within three days. The information "shall be taken on record by him on being signed within three days by the person giving it". The trigger for taking it on record is the informant's signature.
3. Entry. Its substance is entered in the same book as any other information, in the form the State prescribes by rules.

The Sanhita does not use the term "e-FIR" and says nothing about identity verification. What happens to electronic information that is never signed is not stated; on a reading of the text, the duty to take it on record arises on signature.

Special provisions for women and disabled informants

The two provisos to Section 173(1) carry over the 2013 CrPC provisos with the offence list in BNS numbers — Sections 64 to 71, 74 to 79 and 124 BNS, which now include Section 69 (sexual intercourse by deceitful means or by a promise to marry made without intending to keep it). Where the woman against whom the offence is alleged gives the information, "such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer". Where she is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, the information is recorded at her residence or a place of her choice in the presence of an interpreter or special educator, the recording is videographed, and her statement is to be recorded by a Magistrate under Section 183(6)(a) as soon as possible. Neither proviso is limited by the place of the offence.

Free copy — Section 173(2)

"A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant or the victim." Section 154(2) CrPC gave the copy to "the informant" only. The victim need not be the informant to claim a copy. See the victim rights guide.

Preliminary enquiry — Section 173(3)

"(3) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in section 175, on receipt of information relating to the commission of any cognizable offence, which is made punishable for three years or more but less than seven years, the officer in charge of the police station may with the prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, considering the nature and gravity of the offence,— (i) proceed to conduct preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter within a period of fourteen days; or (ii) proceed with investigation when there exists a prima facie case." — BNSS s.173(3)

The conditions, each from the text:

1. Offence band. Cognizable and "made punishable for three years or more but less than seven years". An offence punishable with seven years or more, or less than three, is outside it.
2. Permission. Prior permission "from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police".
3. Discretion. The officer "may" proceed, "considering the nature and gravity of the offence".
4. Purpose and period. To ascertain "whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter", within fourteen days.

Sub-section (3) itself says nothing about registration. In Imran Pratapgadhi (below) the Supreme Court read it as an exception to sub-section (1): within the band, an enquiry may test for a prima facie case even where the information discloses a cognizable offence; after it, the officer should register the FIR at once or tell the informant so that Section 173(4) can be used. Outside the band, the Court said registration of a cognizable offence is mandatory.

When the police refuse — Sections 173(4), 175(3) and BNS 199(c)

Step 1 — Superintendent of Police (Section 173(4)). Send the substance of the information "in writing and by post" to the Superintendent of Police, who, if satisfied that it discloses a cognizable offence, "shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation". This step is Section 154(3) CrPC.

Step 2 — Magistrate (Section 173(4), Section 175(3)). New words close Section 173(4): "failing which such aggrieved person may make an application to the Magistrate". Under Section 175(3), a Magistrate empowered under Section 210 may, "after considering the application supported by an affidavit made under sub-section (4) of section 173, and after making such inquiry as he thinks necessary and submission made in this regard by the police officer", order investigation. Section 156(3) CrPC said only that the Magistrate "may order such an investigation". Section 173(4) itself does not mention an affidavit; the requirement appears through this cross-reference in Section 175(3). Complaints against public servants arising in the discharge of official duties carry further conditions under Section 175(4); see complaints against public servants.

Penalty for not recording (Section 199(c) BNS). A public servant who "fails to record any information given to him under sub-section (1) of section 173" in relation to cognizable offences under Sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 74, 76, 77, 79, 124, 143 or 144 BNS "shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine". The offence is cognizable, bailable and triable by a Magistrate of the first class. Section 166A(c) IPC, inserted by Act 13 of 2013, carried the same punishment for the corresponding IPC offences; the BNS list includes Section 77 (voyeurism), whereas the IPC list did not include Section 354C. Because Section 173(1) now covers information "irrespective of the area", on a reading of the two texts together the offence applies to a refusal founded on the place of the offence. The full remedy ladder is on police refuse to register FIR: remedies.

What this means in practice

• Informant or victim. Go to the nearest police station; the place of the offence is not a ground to refuse (Section 173(1)). Ask for the free copy (Section 173(2)). If reporting electronically, sign within three days (Section 173(1)(ii)).
• If told a "preliminary enquiry" is needed. Check the maximum punishment of the offence alleged: Section 173(3) applies only between three and less than seven years, needs DSP-rank permission, and runs fourteen days. Ask for the outcome so that Section 173(4) can be used if no FIR follows.
• If refused. Write to the Superintendent of Police by post (Section 173(4)); keep proof of posting. Then apply to the Magistrate with an affidavit (Section 175(3)).
• Officer in charge. Record first. The Sanhita gives no transfer deadline, so the forwarding step and its timing depend on State rules and orders, which should be checked locally.
• Advocate. In a quashing or jurisdiction challenge, note Section 175(2): a police officer's proceedings are not to be questioned on the ground that the officer was not empowered under Section 175 to investigate.

Judgments that still matter

Three judgments construe Section 154 or 156 CrPC, whose operative words Section 173(1) and Section 175 repeat or build on; one construes Section 173(3) BNSS directly.

Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), [1999] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 348 (1999 INSC 455) — 5 October 1999. A dowry and cruelty FIR about events in Patiala was lodged in Delhi; the High Court quashed it for want of territorial jurisdiction. M.B. Shah J., for a two-Judge Bench, set that aside: the officer in charge has statutory authority under Section 156 to investigate any cognizable case for which an FIR is lodged; if the investigating officer concludes that the crime was not committed within the station's territorial jurisdiction, the FIR "can be forwarded to the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which crime is committed. But this would not mean that in a case which requires investigation, the police officer can refuse to record the FIR and/or investigate it" (report p.354). The appeal was allowed and the investigation directed to be completed. Why it matters: Section 173(1) now puts "irrespective of the area" into the statute, and Section 175(2) repeats the Section 156(2) bar the Court relied on.

Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., [2013] 14 S.C.R. 713 (2013 INSC 748) — 12 November 2013. A five-Judge Constitution Bench (P. Sathasivam CJI, B.S. Chauhan, Ranjana Prakash Desai, Ranjan Gogoi and S.A. Bobde JJ.) held: "Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation" (para 111(i)). A preliminary inquiry is permissible only to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed (para 111(ii), (v)), in illustrative categories such as matrimonial, commercial, medical-negligence and corruption cases or abnormal delay (para 111(vi)). The S.C.R. text read gives the inquiry limit in direction (vii) as "7 days"; Imran Pratapgadhi (para 22) quotes the same direction as para 120.7 with "fifteen days generally and in exceptional cases, by giving adequate reasons, six weeks". The texts read do not explain the difference, and this guide relies on neither figure. Why it matters: Imran Pratapgadhi held that Section 173(1) is substantially the same as Section 154(1), so Lalita Kumari remains relevant outside Section 173(3).

Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., [2015] 4 S.C.R. 108 (2015 INSC 239) — 19 March 2015. Dipak Misra J., for a two-Judge Bench, held that applications under Section 156(3) CrPC "are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant", and that prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) must precede a Section 156(3) petition (para 27). Why it matters: Section 175(3) BNSS now requires the Magistrate to consider "the application supported by an affidavit", and Section 173(4) makes the Magistrate route follow the Superintendent of Police route.

Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1309 (2025 INSC 410) — 28 March 2025. Abhay S. Oka J. (with Ujjal Bhuyan J.) construed Section 173 BNSS. Section 173(1) "is substantially the same as" Section 154(1) CrPC (para 22). "Sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS is an exception to sub-Section (1) of Section 173" (para 23): within the three-to-under-seven-year band, a preliminary inquiry may test for a prima facie case even where the information discloses a cognizable offence. After it, the officer "should immediately register an FIR" or "immediately inform the first informant/complainant so that he can avail a remedy under sub-Section (4)" (para 24). Outside sub-section (3), "it is mandatory to register FIR" (para 25). Section 173(3) confers a discretion that the officer in that case did not exercise (para 28); the FIR, under provisions including Section 196 BNS, was quashed (para 44). Why it matters: it is the Supreme Court's reading of the BNSS provision itself.

Which law applies to your case

Section 531(2)(a) BNSS provides that an investigation pending immediately before 1 July 2024 is continued under the CrPC "as if this Sanhita had not come into force". On a reading of that text, information given on or after 1 July 2024 is recorded under Section 173, while an investigation already pending on 30 June 2024 continues under the CrPC. For the offence of failing to record information, Section 358(2) BNS lets penalties incurred under the IPC be imposed "as if that Code had not been repealed"; on a reading of that text and Article 20(1) of the Constitution, a failure before 1 July 2024 falls under Section 166A(c) IPC. See offence before 1 July 2024: which law applies.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I file an FIR at any police station under the BNSS?

Yes. Section 173(1) BNSS provides that information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence may be given to an officer in charge of a police station 'irrespective of the area where the offence is committed'. Oral information must be reduced to writing, read over and signed. Section 154(1) CrPC contained no such words.

Is 'Zero FIR' a term used in the BNSS?

No. The Sanhita does not use the words 'Zero FIR'. The label describes information recorded under Section 173(1) BNSS about an offence committed outside the police station's area, which the words 'irrespective of the area where the offence is committed' now expressly allow.

Is there a deadline for transferring a Zero FIR to the police station with jurisdiction?

No period appears in the BNSS. No provision of the Sanhita fixes a time for sending information recorded under Section 173(1) to the police station within whose area the offence was committed, and the figure 'fifteen days' appears only in Sections 187, 346, 480 and 483, none of which deals with FIRs. Section 175(1) limits the station's own power to investigate to cases its local courts could try.

How do I lodge an FIR electronically under Section 173 BNSS?

Section 173(1) BNSS allows information to be given 'by electronic communication', and Section 173(1)(ii) says it shall be taken on record on being signed within three days by the person giving it. The Sanhita does not name particular channels or portals; those depend on the State's rules and systems. Sign the information within three days.

Can the police hold a preliminary enquiry instead of registering an FIR?

Only within Section 173(3) BNSS: for a cognizable offence punishable for three years or more but less than seven years, with prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, and within fourteen days. The Supreme Court in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025) read Section 173(3) as an exception to Section 173(1) and held that outside it registration of a cognizable offence is mandatory (paras 23, 25).

What can I do if the police refuse to record my FIR?

Under Section 173(4) BNSS, send the substance of the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police, who shall investigate or direct an investigation if it discloses a cognizable offence; failing which, apply to the Magistrate. Section 175(3) lets a Magistrate order investigation on an application supported by an affidavit. Failure to record information about the offences listed in Section 199(c) BNS is itself punishable with rigorous imprisonment of six months to two years and fine.

Do I get a free copy of the FIR?

Yes. Section 173(2) BNSS requires a copy of the information as recorded to be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant or the victim. Section 154(2) CrPC gave the copy to the informant only.

Related

• Section 173 BNSS: Zero FIR and e-FIR
• Section 154 CrPC vs Section 173 BNSS: FIR
• Police refuse to register FIR: remedies under BNSS vs CrPC
• Complaint against a public servant: BNSS 175 and 218
• Timelines for investigation and trial under the BNSS
• Offence before 1 July 2024: which law applies
• Section 156 CrPC vs Section 175 BNSS — Police Investigation and the Magistrate's Direction
• Sections 166A and 166B IPC vs Sections 199 and 200 BNS — Public Servant Disobeying Direction under Law; Non-treatment of Victim
• Sections 133–143 CrPC vs Sections 152–162 BNSS — Magistrate's Orders for Removal of Public Nuisance

Sources

• Acts and sections read: BNSS 2023 ss.173, 174, 175, 197–199, 251(1)(a), 531 and the First Schedule entry for BNS s.199 (Gazette CG-DL-E-25122023-250884); BNS 2023 ss.199 and 358 and the headings of ss.69, 74–79, 124, 143, 144 (Gazette CG-DL-E-25122023-250883); CrPC 1973 ss.154 and 156 and the First Schedule entry for IPC s.166A; IPC 1860 ss.166A and 354C (original India Code texts).
• Judgments read (Veritect judgment corpus, full text): Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (S_1999_3_348_358_EN.md); Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2013_14_713_802_EN.md); Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015_4_108_136_EN.md); Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025_3_1309_1349_EN.md).

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.