If a person approaches a police station to report a cognizable offence, can the police refuse to register the information merely by saying:

“This incident did not happen within our police station jurisdiction. Go to the other police station.”

Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, territorial jurisdiction should not by itself become a barrier to the initial reporting of a cognizable offence.

Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 expressly provides that information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence may be given to the officer in charge of a police station irrespective of the area where the offence was committed.

The provision also expressly recognises electronic communication as a mode of giving such information.

These changes are particularly important in cases involving:

cyber fraud;
online cheating;
offences against women;
interstate crimes;
offences committed while travelling;
kidnapping or abduction;
financial fraud involving several States;
matrimonial offences spanning different jurisdictions; and
situations where the victim does not know which police station technically has territorial jurisdiction.

The practical principle is simple:

A victim should not be required to solve the question of territorial jurisdiction before being permitted to report a cognizable offence.

What Is a Zero FIR?

A Zero FIR is commonly understood as an FIR initially registered by a police station even though another police station may ultimately have territorial jurisdiction over the offence.

The expression “Zero FIR” itself is not separately defined in Section 173 BNSS. What is important is the substantive statutory rule contained in Section 173(1): information relating to a cognizable offence may be given irrespective of the area where the offence is committed.

The receiving police station can therefore set the criminal process in motion and, where appropriate, the matter may subsequently be transferred to the police station having territorial jurisdiction.

This avoids a situation in which a victim is sent from one police station to another while evidence disappears, witnesses become unavailable, electronic records are deleted or stolen money is transferred further.

What Does Section 173 BNSS Say About FIR Registration?

Section 173 BNSS is titled “Information in cognizable cases.”

The provision introduces several important safeguards and procedural rules.

1. Information Can Be Given Regardless of Territorial Area

Section 173(1) applies to information concerning a cognizable offence irrespective of the area where the offence was committed.

This is the statutory foundation underlying the modern Zero FIR framework.

2. Information Can Be Given Orally

If information is given orally, the police officer is required to reduce it into writing or have it reduced into writing under his direction.

The information must be read over to the informant and signed in accordance with the statutory procedure.

3. Information Can Be Given Electronically

Section 173(1)(ii) expressly recognises information given through electronic communication.

Where information is supplied electronically, it is to be taken on record upon being signed within three days by the person giving the information.

4. Copy Must Be Given Free of Cost

Section 173(2) provides that a copy of the information recorded under Section 173(1) shall be given forthwith and free of cost to the informant or victim.

This is an important statutory right and should not be treated as a discretionary police courtesy.

Is Zero FIR Now Expressly Recognised Under BNSS?

The BNSS does not create a separate section carrying the heading “Zero FIR.”

However, Section 173(1) expressly permits information concerning a cognizable offence to be given irrespective of the area where the offence is committed.

Therefore, the principle traditionally associated with Zero FIR now has a clear statutory basis.

The question of where the case should ultimately be investigated is separate from the question of whether the initial information should be received and acted upon.

Can Police Refuse an FIR Because the Incident Happened in Another State?

A mere objection regarding territorial jurisdiction should not ordinarily justify turning away information disclosing a cognizable offence.

Consider the following example.

A person ordinarily residing in Delhi travels to Gurugram and is assaulted there. He thereafter approaches a police station in Delhi.

The police may ultimately conclude that the competent investigating police station is in Haryana. However, the statutory wording of Section 173(1) is specifically designed to prevent territorial boundaries from becoming an obstacle at the initial reporting stage.

The same principle becomes even more significant in cybercrime.

A cyber fraud may involve:

a victim sitting in Delhi;
a fraudster operating from another State;
a beneficiary bank account in a third State;
a SIM card issued elsewhere;
a payment intermediary situated in another jurisdiction; and
money passing through several accounts within minutes.

It may be impossible for an ordinary complainant to correctly determine territorial jurisdiction before approaching the police.

What Is an e-FIR Under BNSS?

The expression e-FIR is commonly used for an FIR or cognizable-offence information initiated electronically.

Section 173(1)(ii) BNSS expressly permits information relating to a cognizable offence to be communicated electronically.

However, an important distinction must be understood.

Section 173 does not necessarily mean that every email, web complaint or online grievance automatically becomes a formally registered FIR.

The statutory requirement provides that information communicated electronically is to be taken on record upon being signed within three days by the person giving it.

The precise electronic process may also depend on the platform, police system and applicable State procedure.

Therefore:

Electronic complaint ≠ automatically a registered FIR in every case.

A complainant should verify whether:

an FIR number has been generated;
a police station has been assigned;
the information has been formally recorded;
the relevant penal sections have been entered; and
an investigating officer has been assigned.

Is an Online Cybercrime Complaint the Same as an FIR?

Not necessarily.

India has an official National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal administered within the Government’s cybercrime reporting framework.

For financial cyber fraud, victims can also use the national cybercrime helpline 1930. The Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C) states that the 1930 mechanism operates for reporting cyber financial fraud across States and Union Territories.

However, lodging a cybercrime portal complaint and registration of an FIR are procedurally distinct questions.

The complainant should preserve:

cyber complaint acknowledgment;
complaint number;
FIR number, if registered;
police station details;
transaction IDs;
UTR numbers;
beneficiary account details;
screenshots;
emails;
telephone numbers;
URLs;
wallet details; and
all communication with the bank and police.

Where cyber fraud results in freezing or lien marking on a bank account, our detailed guide on bank account freeze and cyber-police de-freezing remedies in India explains the separate legal framework governing account seizure and release.

Special Protection for Women Under Section 173 BNSS

Section 173 contains additional safeguards where specified offences against a woman are alleged.

For offences falling within the provisions specified in Section 173(1), the information is required to be recorded by a woman police officer or any woman officer.

The provision covers specified sexual and gender-based offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Where the affected person is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, additional safeguards apply, including recording the information:

at the residence of the person or another convenient place of choice;
in the presence of an interpreter or special educator, where applicable;
through videography; and
followed by recording of the statement by a Magistrate in accordance with the applicable BNSS provisions.

These are statutory safeguards, not merely administrative guidelines.

Is FIR Registration Mandatory Whenever a Cognizable Offence Is Alleged?

The answer under the BNSS requires careful qualification.

Under the previous CrPC regime, the Constitution Bench judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1 established the fundamental rule that where information clearly disclosed a cognizable offence, FIR registration was mandatory, subject to the limited preliminary-enquiry principles explained in that judgment.

The BNSS has now introduced a specific statutory regime in Section 173(3) for certain offences.

Accordingly, the old proposition must now be read together with the express language of the BNSS.

Preliminary Enquiry Under Section 173(3) BNSS

Section 173(3) applies where information relates to a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more but less than seven years.

In such cases, the officer in charge of the police station may, after obtaining prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, and after considering the nature and gravity of the offence:

conduct a preliminary enquiry to determine whether a prima facie case exists for proceeding, which is to be completed within fourteen days; or
proceed with investigation where a prima facie case exists.

This means that the BNSS has created a statutory preliminary-enquiry mechanism wider in this defined category than the position that previously operated exclusively under Section 154 CrPC.

Supreme Court on Preliminary Enquiry: Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat

The Supreme Court examined Section 173(3) BNSS in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 410, decided on 28 March 2025.

The Court held that Section 173(3) represents a significant departure from the previous Section 154 CrPC framework.

For offences falling within Section 173(3), a police officer is empowered, subject to the statutory conditions, to conduct a preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists for proceeding, even where the information received otherwise discloses a cognizable offence.

The Supreme Court further explained that:

if the preliminary enquiry reveals a prima facie case, the FIR should be registered and investigation should proceed; and
if the officer concludes that no prima facie case exists, the informant should be informed so that the remedy under Section 173(4) can be invoked.

This distinction is important.

It would be legally inaccurate to say that preliminary enquiry before FIR is never permissible under the BNSS.

Equally, Section 173(3) cannot be used as an unlimited excuse to keep a complaint pending indefinitely.

The statute itself prescribes the relevant punishment range, superior-officer permission and a fourteen-day period for the preliminary enquiry route.

What If the Police Refuse to Register the FIR?

The BNSS creates a statutory escalation mechanism.

A complainant should ordinarily preserve evidence of every step rather than relying only upon oral visits to a police station.

Step 1: Give a Proper Written Complaint

The complaint should identify, as far as possible:

the complainant;
accused persons, if known;
date and time;
place of occurrence;
sequence of events;
offences disclosed by the factual allegations;
witnesses;
electronic evidence;
financial evidence;
documents;
CCTV or digital material; and
previous complaints, if any.

Keep proof of submission.

Step 2: Approach the Superintendent of Police Under Section 173(4)

If the officer in charge of the police station refuses to record the information, Section 173(4) provides a statutory remedy.

The aggrieved person may send the substance of the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned.

If the Superintendent of Police is satisfied that the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the SP shall either:

investigate the case himself; or
direct investigation by a subordinate police officer.

The complete statutory text can be read in Section 173 BNSS on India Code.

Step 3: Approach the Magistrate Under Sections 173(4) and 175(3) BNSS

If the statutory police remedy does not produce appropriate action, the complainant may approach the competent Magistrate.

Section 175(3) BNSS is particularly important.

It provides that a Magistrate empowered under Section 210 may, after:

considering the application supported by an affidavit made pursuant to Section 173(4);
conducting such inquiry as the Magistrate considers necessary; and
considering submissions made by the police officer,

order investigation in accordance with law.

This is therefore not merely a repetition of the old Section 156(3) CrPC wording. The BNSS expressly incorporates procedural safeguards into the Magistrate-stage remedy.

Important 2026 Supreme Court Development on Sections 173 and 175 BNSS

In XXX v. State of Kerala & Others, 2026 INSC 88, the Supreme Court examined the interaction between Sections 173 and 175 BNSS.

The Court discussed the statutory sequence for seeking registration and investigation and emphasised the relationship between:

the complaint to the police;
the remedy before the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4); and
the Magistrate’s jurisdiction under Section 175(3).

The Supreme Court also noted that before ordering investigation under Section 175(3), the Magistrate is required to consider the application supported by affidavit made to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), conduct such inquiry as considered necessary and consider the police officer’s submissions.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in 2026 INSC 88 can be read here.

This is an important contemporary authority for any application seeking judicial intervention after non-registration of an FIR.

Should You Directly File a Writ Petition in the High Court?

Not as an automatic first response.

Where the BNSS provides an effective statutory hierarchy, courts may expect those remedies to be pursued before extraordinary writ jurisdiction is invoked.

The usual sequence should therefore be examined carefully:

Police Station → Superintendent of Police → Magistrate → Higher Constitutional Remedy where legally justified

That does not mean Article 226 jurisdiction disappears.

High Court intervention may still be considered in exceptional situations involving, for example:

serious violation of fundamental rights;
patent police illegality;
threat to life or liberty;
institutional or systemic failure;
extraordinary urgency;
biased or compromised investigation;
jurisdictional abuse; or
circumstances where the statutory remedy is demonstrably ineffective.

But bypassing an available statutory remedy without justification may weaken the petition.

Zero FIR and Territorial Jurisdiction Are Not the Same Question

This distinction is often missed.

Zero FIR concerns initial registration or receipt of information.

Territorial jurisdiction concerns where investigation and eventual proceedings should properly continue.

Therefore, registration of information by one police station does not necessarily mean that the same police station must conduct the entire investigation.

A transfer may subsequently occur.

This procedural flexibility is precisely what prevents the jurisdiction question from defeating immediate access to criminal-law remedies.

Can Police Register a Zero FIR and Transfer It Later?

Yes.

Where the receiving police station concludes that another police station is territorially competent, the matter may be transferred for investigation.

The important point is that the complainant should not ordinarily be forced to undertake a jurisdictional investigation before the State machinery will receive information concerning a cognizable offence.

What If the Complaint Is Only a Civil Dispute?

The label attached by either side is not decisive.

A contractual, matrimonial, employment, property or commercial dispute can contain both civil and criminal elements.

Conversely, a mere breach of contract does not automatically become cheating or criminal breach of trust.

The correct question is:

Do the factual allegations disclose the statutory ingredients of a cognizable criminal offence?

For example, in an allegation of cheating, the timing and existence of dishonest intention may be material. In criminal breach of trust, entrustment and dishonest misappropriation become important.

Police should examine whether the information legally discloses a cognizable offence rather than merely accepting the terminology used by the complainant.

On the other side of the process, where an FIR has already been registered but does not disclose the ingredients of an offence, a person accused may need to consider the separate remedy of FIR quashing before the High Court under Section 528 BNSS.

Does Registration of an FIR Mean Automatic Arrest?

No.

FIR registration and arrest are legally distinct stages.

Registration of an FIR commences the investigative process. It does not automatically establish guilt and does not by itself mean that an accused must immediately be arrested.

Arrest without warrant is separately governed by Section 35 BNSS and related safeguards.

Our detailed guide on BNSS Section 35 notice before arrest, police procedure and rights of the accused explains when the police may issue notice instead of making immediate arrest.

Where a person reasonably apprehends arrest for a non-bailable offence, the separate remedy of anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS may also require consideration.

What Should a Good FIR Complaint Contain?

A legally useful criminal complaint should be factual, chronological and evidence-based.

It should ordinarily answer the following questions.

Who?

Identify the accused where known. If the accused is unknown, provide all available identifying details.

What?

State precisely what happened.

When?

Mention relevant dates and times.

Where?

Specify the location, even if there is uncertainty regarding the technically correct police station.

How?

Explain the manner in which the alleged offence occurred.

What Evidence Exists?

Identify available:

documents;
screenshots;
recordings;
bank transactions;
emails;
chats;
photographs;
CCTV footage;
medical records;
agreements; and
witnesses.

What Happened Afterwards?

Mention subsequent threats, demands, movement of money, communications, concealment of property or other relevant events.

A criminal complaint should avoid unnecessary exaggeration because material inconsistencies may later affect investigation, cross-examination and trial.

Can a Zero FIR Be Registered Against an Unknown Person?

Yes.

Identification of the offender is not a precondition in every criminal case.

Many offences begin with an FIR against unknown persons.

Identity may subsequently emerge through:

CCTV footage;
banking trails;
call-data analysis;
device examination;
IP logs;
witness statements;
vehicle records;
forensic evidence; or
other investigative material.

Zero FIR in Cyber-Financial Fraud Cases

Cyber fraud is one of the clearest practical examples of why territorial flexibility is necessary.

A victim may transfer funds in Delhi while:

the beneficiary account is maintained in Mumbai;
a mule account operates in Bengaluru;
the suspect communicates from another State;
the mobile number is registered elsewhere; and
the funds pass through several accounts.

The victim should not delay reporting while attempting to identify the perfect police jurisdiction.

For cyber-financial fraud, immediate reporting should be made through the official National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal and, where applicable, through 1930.

Evidence should be preserved immediately.

This may include:

bank statement;
UTR or transaction reference;
UPI ID;
beneficiary details;
screenshots;
fraudster’s number;
email address;
social-media profile;
website URL;
payment gateway records; and
chat history.

Where funds have already been traced into another person’s account and that account is frozen, the legal issue changes from FIR registration to seizure and de-freezing. Our guide on bank account freezing by cyber police in India deals specifically with that issue.

Frequently Asked Questions About Zero FIR and e-FIR

1. What is a Zero FIR?

A Zero FIR refers to registration of cognizable-offence information by a police station even where another police station may ultimately have territorial jurisdiction. Section 173(1) BNSS expressly allows information to be given irrespective of the area where the offence occurred.

2. Is the term “Zero FIR” written in Section 173 BNSS?

The section does not separately define the expression “Zero FIR.” Instead, Section 173(1) gives statutory effect to the underlying principle by permitting information concerning a cognizable offence to be given irrespective of territorial area.

3. Can police refuse my complaint because the offence happened somewhere else?

Territorial jurisdiction alone should not ordinarily be used to turn away information disclosing a cognizable offence. The matter can subsequently be transferred to the police station competent to investigate.

4. Can an FIR be given electronically?

Yes. Section 173(1)(ii) permits electronic communication, subject to the statutory requirement that it be signed within three days by the person giving the information.

5. Is emailing a complaint automatically an FIR?

Not necessarily. The complainant should verify whether the information has actually been taken on record and whether a formal FIR number has been generated.

6. Am I entitled to a free copy of the FIR?

Section 173(2) requires a copy of the recorded information to be given forthwith and free of cost to the informant or victim.

7. Can police conduct a preliminary enquiry before registering an FIR?

Section 173(3) creates a specific preliminary-enquiry mechanism for cognizable offences punishable with imprisonment for three years or more but less than seven years, subject to the requirements contained in that provision.

8. How long can a Section 173(3) preliminary enquiry continue?

Where the police choose the preliminary-enquiry route under Section 173(3), the provision contemplates determination of whether a prima facie case exists within fourteen days.

9. What if the SHO refuses to register my FIR?

The complainant may invoke Section 173(4) and send the substance of the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned.

10. What if the Superintendent of Police also does not act?

The complainant may consider approaching the competent Magistrate under the statutory framework of Sections 173(4) and 175(3) BNSS.

11. Does a Magistrate application need an affidavit?

Section 175(3) expressly refers to an application supported by an affidavit made under Section 173(4).

12. Can a Zero FIR be transferred later?

Yes. The receiving police station may transfer the case to the territorially competent police station for further investigation.

13. Is a Zero FIR restricted to crimes against women?

No. Section 173(1)’s territorial principle concerns cognizable offences generally, although the provision contains additional safeguards for specified offences against women.

14. Can cyber fraud be reported through Zero FIR?

Cognizable cybercrime information may raise the same territorial principles. Cyber-financial fraud should also be reported promptly through the official National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal and 1930 mechanism where applicable.

15. Does FIR registration mean the accused will be arrested immediately?

No. Arrest is governed separately. In appropriate cases, police must consider the statutory safeguards under Section 35 BNSS.

Important Provisions to Read Along With Section 173 BNSS

The principal provisions relevant to FIR registration and investigation include:

Section 173 BNSS — Information in cognizable cases.

Section 174 BNSS — Information regarding non-cognizable cases.

Section 175 BNSS — Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable cases and Magistrate’s power to order investigation.

Section 176 BNSS — Procedure for investigation.

Section 35 BNSS — Arrest without warrant and notice framework.

Section 193 BNSS — Police report on completion of investigation.

The official text of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is available on India Code.

Important Judgments

Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1

The Constitution Bench laid down the foundational principles governing registration of FIRs under the earlier Section 154 CrPC framework.

The judgment remains fundamental, but its principles must now be read together with the express statutory changes introduced by Section 173 BNSS.

Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 410

The Supreme Court specifically examined Section 173(3) BNSS and explained the expanded statutory preliminary-enquiry framework applicable to the category of offences covered by the provision.

State of Andhra Pradesh v. Punati Ramulu, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 590

The decision is relevant to the principle that territorial jurisdiction should not be used by police as a basis for refusing to act on information concerning a cognizable offence.

XXX v. State of Kerala & Others, 2026 INSC 88

This recent Supreme Court authority is particularly important for understanding the sequential remedies under Sections 173(4) and 175 BNSS and the procedure governing an application before the Magistrate.

Practical Takeaway

Section 173 BNSS significantly strengthens the procedural framework governing access to the police machinery.

Five points deserve particular attention.

First, information concerning a cognizable offence can be given irrespective of the area where the offence was committed.

Second, electronic communication is expressly recognised, subject to the statutory signing requirement.

Third, the informant or victim is entitled to a copy of the recorded information forthwith and free of cost.

Fourth, Section 173(3) creates a statutory preliminary-enquiry framework for the specified category of offences punishable with imprisonment for three years or more but less than seven years.

Fifth, refusal at the police-station level is not the end of the legal process. Section 173(4) provides escalation to the Superintendent of Police, while Section 175(3) provides the Magistrate-stage remedy subject to the statutory procedure.

For complainants, the most important practical steps are to report promptly, preserve evidence, obtain acknowledgments and follow the statutory escalation route.

For accused persons, it is equally important to remember that registration of an FIR is the commencement of investigation—not a determination of guilt, and not automatic authority for arrest.

Readers examining FIR registration and investigation may also find these Fastrack Legal Solutions resources useful:

BNSS Section 35 Notice Before Arrest: Meaning, Rights, Police Procedure and Bail Strategy

Anticipatory Bail Under Section 482 BNSS: Procedure, Grounds and Court Strategy

FIR Quashing in India: High Court Powers, Grounds, Procedure and Case Law

Bank Account Freeze in India: Cyber Police Freeze, Legal Remedy and De-Freezing Procedure

About Fastrack Legal Solutions LLP

Fastrack Legal Solutions LLP is a New Delhi-based legal practice engaged in litigation, criminal law, Armed Forces and service matters, corporate legal advisory, risk mitigation, due diligence and allied legal work.

Website: www.fastracklegalsolutions.com

Disclaimer

This article is published solely for general legal awareness and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, solicitation, invitation or inducement for professional engagement and does not create an advocate-client relationship.

The applicable legal remedy depends upon the facts of the case, nature of the alleged offence, punishment prescribed, date of occurrence, applicable statutory regime, territorial facts, police action, evidence, State rules and binding judicial precedents. Readers should obtain case-specific legal advice where required.

Fastrack Legal Solutions