FIR under the | Section 173 BNSS

First Information Report under the BNSS, 2023: Section 173, Zero FIR and e-FIR, Preliminary Inquiry, Delay, Second FIR, Evidentiary Value and Quashing

The first information report is the document with which a criminal case begins and against which every later version is measured. It sets the investigation in motion, fixes the time at which the prosecution case was first stated, and supplies the yardstick against which the evidence at trial is tested for consistency. It is also, curiously, nowhere defined. The expression appears in no definition clause of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; it is the name practice has given to the information recorded under section 173(1), which the section itself calls only “information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence”.

Section 173 has changed more than any other single provision in the investigation chapters. Information may now be given irrespective of the area where the offence was committed, and by electronic communication; a free copy goes to the informant or the victim; and a preliminary inquiry of fourteen days is available, for the first time by statute, in a defined band of offences. This topic covers the provision and the law that has grown around it.

1. Meaning, Object and Essentials

1.1 What an FIR is

An FIR is the information first received by an officer in charge of a police station relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, recorded under section 173(1). Its object is to set the criminal law in motion, to obtain an early account of the occurrence before there is time for embellishment, and to fix the point from which the investigation proceeds.

The essentials	Content
It must relate to a cognizable offence	Information about a non-cognizable offence is dealt with under section 174: the substance is entered in a book and the informant is referred to the Magistrate. It does not produce an FIR
It must be given to an officer in charge of a police station	Information given to a Magistrate is a complaint under section 2(1)(h). The recipient, not the form of the document, decides which it is
It must be the first in point of time	The information on which the investigation is set in motion. Later information about the same occurrence is a statement in the course of that investigation
It need not name the accused	Nor need it set out every detail. It is the first information, not an encyclopaedia of the prosecution case
It need not be given by an eyewitness or the victim	Anyone with information may give it, and hearsay information may found an FIR
It must be signed	Every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing, shall be signed by the person giving it; where it is given by electronic communication, it is taken on record on being signed within three days

2. The Modes of Lodging: Section 173(1)

Figure 1: The modes, the special categories, and what follows

Section 173(1), BNSS 2023

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 by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it;

(ii) by electronic communication, it shall be taken on record by him on being signed within three days by the person giving it,

and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may by rules prescribe.

2.1 The Zero FIR

The words “irrespective of the area where the offence is committed” give statutory force to what was previously an administrative practice reinforced by judicial direction. Information about a cognizable offence may be given at any police station, and the officer must record it; he cannot decline on the ground that the offence was committed elsewhere. The case is thereafter transferred to the police station having territorial jurisdiction for investigation.

The practice acquired the name Zero FIR because such a report was given the serial number zero, pending the allotment of a regular number by the station that would investigate. The device exists because the person most in need of it, a victim who has travelled, who is injured, or who has left the place of the offence, is precisely the person least able to argue about jurisdiction at a counter.

2.2 The e-FIR

Clause (ii) permits information to be given by electronic communication, and requires it to be taken on record on being signed within three days by the person giving it. Two points on the drafting. The signature is a condition of the information being taken on record, so an unsigned electronic communication does not by itself become an FIR; and the three days run from the giving of the information, so the provision contemplates a short window in which the informant attends and signs.

⚠ A court summons may be served electronically; a police notice may not

Section 173(1)(ii) permits information to be given electronically, and sections 63, 64 and 70(3) permit a court summons to be issued and served electronically and deem such service to be due service.

But the Supreme Court held in July 2025 that a notice under section 35 requiring a person to appear before the police cannot be served by WhatsApp or other electronic communication, because non-compliance with it can lead to arrest and the mode of service therefore bears directly on liberty.

The three situations are distinct and it is worth keeping them apart: giving information electronically is permitted; serving a court summons electronically is permitted; serving a police notice electronically is not.

2.3 Special categories

Category	Requirement
A victim of specified sexual offences	The information shall be recorded by a woman police officer or any woman officer
An informant who is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled	The information shall be recorded at her residence or a place of her choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, and the recording of the information shall be videographed
The statement of such a person	Shall as soon as possible be recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under section 183
The informant or the victim generally	A copy of the information as recorded is given to him or her free of cost: section 173(2). The CrPC gave a copy only to the informant

3. Registration: Duty or Discretion?

Whether an officer must register a case on receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence, or may first satisfy himself that the information is true, was settled by a Constitution Bench in 2014 and has now been partly modified by statute.

3.1 The judicial position

In Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh the Constitution Bench held that registration of a first information report is mandatory where the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, and that no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. The officer is not concerned at that stage with the reasonableness or credibility of the information; that is a matter for the investigation. The Court held that a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only where the information does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, that it is to be confined to ascertaining whether a cognizable offence is disclosed, and that it should ordinarily be completed within a short period. It identified categories in which such an inquiry may be appropriate, including matrimonial and family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption cases, and cases where there is abnormal delay in initiating criminal prosecution without satisfactory explanation. It also directed that all information relating to cognizable offences be mandatorily recorded in the general diary or daily diary.

3.2 What section 173(3) added

Section 173(3), BNSS 2023

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.

Punishment prescribed	What section 173 permits
Less than three years	Registration follows on the information disclosing a cognizable offence. No statutory preliminary inquiry is provided for
Three years or more but less than seven years	A preliminary enquiry within fourteen days, with the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence
Seven years or more	Registration follows. No preliminary enquiry is provided for, and section 176(3) additionally requires a forensic expert to visit the scene

⚠ The tension between section 173(3) and Lalita Kumari

Lalita Kumari held that where the information discloses a cognizable offence, registration is mandatory and no preliminary inquiry is permissible. Section 173(3) permits a preliminary enquiry in a band of offences without requiring that the information fail to disclose a cognizable offence.

The reconciliation most consistent with both is that section 173(3) is a statutory carve-out for the specified band, controlled by three safeguards that Lalita Kumari did not have: the prior permission of a Deputy Superintendent of Police, a consideration of the nature and gravity of the offence, and a fourteen-day outer limit. Parliament may narrow a judicially declared rule of procedure by express provision, and it has done so for one band only.

What has not changed is the position outside that band. For offences carrying less than three years and for those carrying seven years or more, the Lalita Kumari rule applies in full: information disclosing a cognizable offence must be registered.

4. Refusal to Register, and the Remedies

📖 Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2006) 2 SCC 677

Facts: The appellant complained that despite information disclosing a cognizable offence, the police had refused to register a case, and that her repeated representations had produced no result. The High Court declined to interfere. The question was whether the police have any discretion to decline registration where the information discloses a cognizable offence.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the genuineness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent to registration. Where the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the officer in charge has no option but to register a case; the question whether the allegation is true is a matter for the investigation that follows, not for the stage of registration. The Court held that the refusal was a dereliction of duty and directed registration, observing that an officer who declines to register in such a case acts contrary to a statutory obligation and is liable to departmental action.

Ratio: Registration of information disclosing a cognizable offence is a statutory obligation and not a matter of discretion. Credibility is for the investigation, not for the counter.

4.1 The remedies for refusal

Section 173(4). Where the officer in charge refuses to record the information, the substance may be sent in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police, who, if satisfied that the information discloses a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation by a subordinate, who then has all the powers of an officer in charge.
Section 175(3). An application to a Magistrate empowered under section 210, supported by an affidavit, for a direction to investigate. The Magistrate may make such inquiry as he thinks necessary and must consider the submissions of the police officer on the request. Those two requirements are new.
A complaint to the Magistrate. Under sections 210 and 223, the aggrieved person may file a complaint, on which the Magistrate examines him on oath and may proceed under Chapter XVI. The accused must now be given an opportunity of being heard before cognizance is taken on a complaint.
A writ petition. Under Article 226, where the statutory remedies have been exhausted or are inadequate.
Departmental action. A refusal to register in the face of information disclosing a cognizable offence is a dereliction, and in specified categories of offence the failure to record information is itself an offence under the penal law.

📖 Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India, (2016) 9 SCC 473

Facts: A petition sought a direction that copies of first information reports be made available to the accused and to the public, so that a person against whom a case had been registered could know of it and take such steps as were open to him, and so that the registration of cases could not be concealed.

Held: The Court directed that copies of first information reports, except those relating to offences of a sensitive nature, be uploaded on the police website or on the State Government website within twenty-four hours of registration, and within seventy-two hours where connectivity or geography makes that impracticable in remote areas. It excluded from the direction FIRs relating to sexual offences, offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, offences against women and children, and matters involving insurgency or terrorism, and provided for a decision by a committee where a question arises whether a case is sensitive. It further directed that an accused who has not been able to obtain a copy may apply to the Superintendent of Police, and that a copy be furnished within twenty-four hours of such an application.

Ratio: The registration of a first information report is a public act and, save in sensitive categories, the document is to be placed in the public domain within twenty-four hours, so that a person affected may know of it and act on it.

5. Delay in Lodging an FIR

Delay in lodging the first information is one of the commonest grounds of attack on a prosecution case, and its significance is frequently overstated in argument on both sides.

Proposition	Content
Delay is not fatal by itself	There is no period prescribed for lodging information. Delay is a circumstance the court weighs, not a bar
Why delay matters	The value of an early report is that it is made before there is time for embellishment, consultation and the concoction of a false version. Delay opens the door to all three, and the longer it is the wider the door
The question is whether it is explained	Where the delay is satisfactorily explained, it loses its significance. Where it is unexplained, the court looks at the prosecution case with greater care
Common explanations accepted	The victim was being treated for injuries; the informant was in shock or fear; the distance to the police station and the absence of transport; the family first attended to the injured or the dead; a woman victim required time to overcome hesitation in a sexual offence; the parties first attempted a settlement or approached elders
Sexual offences	Delay is assessed with particular sensitivity. The reluctance of a victim and her family to expose her to the process is a matter of ordinary human experience, and delay in such a case is rarely by itself a ground to doubt the version
The counterpart: delay in dispatching the report to the Magistrate	The report is required to be sent to the Magistrate forthwith. An unexplained delay in dispatch, where the FIR bears an early time but reaches the Magistrate much later, is a more serious matter than delay in lodging, because it suggests that the document was prepared later than it purports to have been

6. Multiple, Second and Cross FIRs

Figure 2: The tests

The rule is that there can be only one first information report for one occurrence. Later information about the same occurrence is a statement recorded in the course of the same investigation, and a second FIR on the same occurrence is liable to be quashed. But the rule is one of sameness of occurrence, not sameness of offence, and three situations fall outside it.

📖 Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 6 SCC 384

Facts: A second first information report was registered in respect of an incident about which a case had already been registered, and the question was whether it was barred by the rule against a second FIR, and what the test is for deciding whether two informations relate to the same occurrence.

Held: The Court held that the rule is that there cannot be a second FIR in respect of the same offence or occurrence, because that would expose a person to repeated investigations and repeated arrests on the same facts. The test is one of sameness: the court asks whether the two informations relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence, or to two or more parts of the same transaction. Where the second information relates to a distinct and different occurrence, or discloses a different transaction, a second FIR is permissible even though the two are connected in time or place. A counter-case, being the rival version of the same incident put forward by the opposite party, is not a second FIR in the prohibited sense and must be recorded. Where a second FIR is not permissible, the remedy is to quash it.

Ratio: The prohibition is against a second information about the same occurrence. A distinct transaction, and a counter-case putting forward the rival version, are both outside it.

Situation	Position
A later information about the same occurrence	No second FIR. It is a statement in the course of the same investigation, and further investigation is the appropriate course
A counter-case or cross-FIR: the rival version of the same incident	Permissible and necessary. Both versions are registered and investigated, and the two cases are tried by the same court, one after the other, so that the whole picture is before one judge
A distinct occurrence, though connected in time or place	Permissible. The test is sameness of occurrence, not proximity
A larger conspiracy disclosed later, of which the first offence was a part	Permissible. The wider transaction is a different occurrence from the individual offence
A second information adding new offences on the same facts	Not a second FIR. The offences in the existing case are altered or added to; no fresh registration is needed
A second FIR on the same occurrence has been registered	It is liable to be quashed, and the investigation on it set aside

7. Evidentiary Value

The single most important proposition about an FIR at trial is that it is not substantive evidence. It is not proof of the facts it states, and a conviction cannot rest on it. Its uses are three, and they are narrow.

To corroborate its maker. Where the informant is examined as a witness, his earlier statement in the FIR may be used to corroborate his testimony, under the provisions of the law of evidence relating to former statements.
To contradict its maker. Where his evidence at trial differs from what he said in the FIR, the earlier statement may be put to him in cross-examination to contradict him. This is the use most often made of it.
As a dying declaration, or as conduct. Where the maker of the FIR dies and the statement relates to the cause of his death or the circumstances of the transaction resulting in it, it may be admissible as a dying declaration. It may also be relevant as evidence of the conduct of the informant.

Question	Position
Is the FIR substantive evidence?	No. It is not proof of the facts stated, and a conviction cannot rest on it
Can an FIR lodged by the accused be used against him?	Not as a confession, which is barred by the law of evidence where made to a police officer. A non-confessional part may be admissible as conduct, and the fact that he gave the information may be proved
Does an omission in the FIR matter?	Where a material fact later deposed to is missing from the FIR, the omission may be put to the witness as a contradiction. But the FIR is not expected to contain every detail, and an omission of a minor particular is of little value
Does a discrepancy between the FIR and the evidence destroy the case?	Not by itself. The court considers whether the discrepancy goes to the core of the version or to a peripheral detail
Can a case proceed if the informant turns hostile?	Yes. The FIR is not the evidence; the evidence is what the witnesses depose at trial, and the case may rest on other witnesses and on the other material
What of the FIR in a case where the informant is the investigating officer?	Permissible, but the court examines the investigation with greater care, because the same person is the accuser and the investigator

8. Quashing of an FIR

The power to quash a first information report is exercised by the High Court under section 528 of the Sanhita, which preserves its inherent power, and under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is an extraordinary power, exercised sparingly, and the categories in which it is available were set out in the leading case on the subject.

Category	Content
1	Where the allegations, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused
2	Where the allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by the police without an order of a Magistrate
3	Where the allegations and the evidence collected do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out no case
4	Where the allegations do constitute an offence but it is non-cognizable, and no order of a Magistrate has been obtained
5	Where the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person could ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
6	Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any provision of the Code or the Act concerned to the institution and continuance of the proceeding, or where a specific provision provides efficacious redress for the grievance
7	Where the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides, or is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance and with a view to spite the accused
—	The categories are illustrative and not exhaustive, and the power is not to be used to embark on an inquiry into the reliability of the allegations, which is the province of the trial

Two further grounds have developed. A second FIR on the same occurrence is liable to be quashed. And where the parties to a dispute predominantly civil or matrimonial in character have settled the matter, the High Court may quash even a non-compoundable proceeding in exercise of its inherent power, though it will not do so in respect of grave offences such as murder, rape or dacoity, or offences under special statutes involving the public interest.

9. FIR Distinguished

	First information report	Complaint	Statement to the police
Provision	Section 173(1); not defined	Section 2(1)(h)	Section 180
Given to	An officer in charge of a police station	A Magistrate	A police officer during the investigation
Offence	Cognizable only	Cognizable or non-cognizable	Whatever is under investigation
Position in time	The first information about the occurrence	The first step in the complaint route	Made after the investigation has begun
What follows	Investigation under section 175(1)	Examination of the complainant on oath under section 223	Recorded in the case diary; forms part of the material with the police report
Signature	Must be signed by the informant	No signature requirement in the definition	Not to be signed by the person making it
Evidentiary value	Not substantive; corroborates or contradicts its maker	Not substantive; the complainant is examined on oath	Not substantive; usable only to contradict the maker, and by the accused

10. Key Takeaways

The position stated shortly

1. The expression “first information report” is nowhere defined. It is the information relating to a cognizable offence recorded under section 173(1).

2. Information may be given irrespective of the area where the offence was committed — the Zero FIR, now a statutory entitlement — and by electronic communication, taken on record on being signed within three days.

3. A copy is given free of cost to the informant or the victim under section 173(2). The CrPC gave a copy only to the informant.

4. The information of a victim of specified sexual offences is recorded by a woman police officer; that of a disabled informant is recorded at a place of her choice, with an interpreter or special educator, and is videographed.

5. Registration is mandatory where the information discloses a cognizable offence; credibility is for the investigation, not for the counter: Lalita Kumari, Ramesh Kumari.

6. Section 173(3) permits a preliminary enquiry within fourteen days, with the prior permission of a Deputy Superintendent of Police, only where the offence is punishable with three years or more but less than seven.

7. On refusal to register, the remedies are section 173(4) to the Superintendent of Police, section 175(3) to a Magistrate on affidavit, a complaint under section 210, a writ petition, and departmental action.

8. FIRs, except in sensitive categories, are to be uploaded within twenty-four hours of registration, and within seventy-two hours in remote areas: Youth Bar Association.

9. Delay in lodging is not fatal; the question is whether it is explained. Unexplained delay in dispatching the report to the Magistrate is the more serious objection.

10. There can be only one FIR for one occurrence. A counter-case, a distinct occurrence and a larger conspiracy disclosed later are outside the rule: Anju Chaudhary.

11. An FIR is not substantive evidence. It may be used to corroborate or contradict its maker, and where he dies it may be admissible as a dying declaration.

12. An FIR may be quashed under section 528 and Article 226 in the recognised categories, including where the allegations disclose no offence, where they are absurd and inherently improbable, where there is a legal bar, and where the proceeding is manifestly mala fide.

11. Frequently Asked Questions

Is the FIR defined in the BNSS?

No. The expression appears in no definition clause. It is the name practice has given to the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence recorded under section 173(1), which the section itself calls only “information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence”.

Who can lodge an FIR?

Anyone with information about a cognizable offence. The informant need not be the victim, need not be an eyewitness, and need not have personal knowledge; hearsay information may found an FIR. What matters is that the information relates to a cognizable offence.

What is a Zero FIR?

An FIR registered at a police station that does not have territorial jurisdiction over the offence, given the serial number zero pending transfer to the station that will investigate. Section 173(1) now permits information to be given “irrespective of the area where the offence is committed”, so the practice has statutory force.

Can an FIR be lodged online under the BNSS?

Information may be given by electronic communication under section 173(1)(ii), and it is taken on record by the officer on being signed by the person giving it within three days. The signature is a condition of its being taken on record.

When can the police conduct a preliminary enquiry?

Under section 173(3), where the information relates to a cognizable offence punishable with three years or more but less than seven years, with the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. The enquiry must be completed within fourteen days.

Does delay in lodging an FIR destroy the prosecution case?

No. There is no prescribed period, and delay is a circumstance rather than a bar. Where it is satisfactorily explained it loses significance; where it is unexplained the court examines the case with greater care. Delay in dispatching the report to the Magistrate is a more serious objection than delay in lodging it.

Can there be two FIRs about the same incident?

Not about the same occurrence. Later information about the same occurrence is a statement in the same investigation. But a counter-case putting forward the rival version, a genuinely distinct occurrence, and a larger conspiracy disclosed later are all outside the rule.

Is an FIR evidence at the trial?

It is not substantive evidence. It may be used to corroborate or to contradict the person who made it when he is examined as a witness, and where he has died it may be admissible as a dying declaration if it relates to the cause of his death or the circumstances of the transaction resulting in it.

Related Topics

Complaint, FIR and Police Report: The Distinction
Cognizable and Non-Cognizable Offences under the BNSS, 2023
Preventive Action of the Police: Sections 168 to 172, BNSS
Police Report under the BNSS, 2023: Section 193
Inquiry, Investigation and Trial: Meaning and Distinction
Electronic Communication under the BNSS, 2023