Section 173, BNSS 2023 — the substance

(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 — (i) if given orally, it shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant, and shall be signed by the person giving it; (ii) if given by electronic communication, it shall be taken on record by him on being signed within three days by the person giving it.

And further: a copy of the information as recorded shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant or the victim.

(3) Where the information relates to an offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more but less than seven years, the officer in charge may, with the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, and having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence — (i) proceed to conduct a preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case, within a period of fourteen days; or (ii) proceed with investigation when there exists a prima facie case.

(4) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge to record the information may send its substance in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police, who, if satisfied that it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made.

📖 Satvinder Kaur v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (1999) 8 SCC 728

Facts: A first information report was registered at a police station, and it was contended that the station had no territorial jurisdiction over the offence, so that the investigation it conducted was without authority and the proceedings should be quashed.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the statutory power of a police officer to investigate a cognizable offence is not to be interfered with lightly, and that the question of territorial jurisdiction does not arise at the stage of registration. It held that an officer in charge of a police station is empowered to investigate any cognizable case, and that if, in the course of the investigation, it appears that the offence was committed outside his jurisdiction, the proper course is to transfer the case to the station having jurisdiction — not to refuse to register or to abandon the enquiry. The Court further held that an investigation is not vitiated merely because it was conducted by a station which lacked territorial jurisdiction: the objection goes to propriety, and the proceedings are not rendered void unless a failure of justice is shown. It deprecated the practice of quashing a first information report on such a ground, holding that it defeats the object of the provisions and leaves a cognizable offence uninvestigated.

Ratio: Territorial jurisdiction does not arise at the stage of registration; an officer may investigate any cognizable case and should transfer it where jurisdiction lies elsewhere. An investigation is not vitiated merely by want of territorial jurisdiction unless a failure of justice is shown.

📖 State of Andhra Pradesh v. Punati Ramulu, AIR 1993 SC 2644

Facts: An officer in charge of a police station declined to record information relating to a cognizable offence on the ground that the offence had been committed outside the limits of his police station, and directed the informant to go elsewhere. The consequences of that refusal fell to be considered.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the refusal was wholly unjustified and amounted to a dereliction of duty on the part of the officer. It held that an officer in charge of a police station is bound to record information disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence, and that he cannot decline to do so on the ground of territorial jurisdiction: his duty on receiving such information is to record it and, if the offence was committed elsewhere, to transmit it to the station having jurisdiction. The Court observed that a refusal of this kind leaves the informant without a remedy at the moment when he most needs one, permits evidence to be lost while he travels between stations, and brings the administration of criminal justice into disrepute. It held that the conduct of such an officer is a matter calling for departmental notice, and that a court should view with great caution any explanation resting on such a refusal.

Ratio: An officer in charge of a police station cannot decline to record information disclosing a cognizable offence on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. His duty is to record it and transmit it to the station having jurisdiction, and a refusal is a dereliction of duty.

⚠ The points that decide most disputes

Registration is mandatory where the information discloses a cognizable offence. The officer has no discretion to weigh whether the allegation is likely to be true.

A preliminary enquiry is not an investigation. Its only purpose is to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed, and under section 173(3) it must be completed within fourteen days and requires the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent.

Territorial jurisdiction is no ground for refusal. An officer who declines to record information because the offence occurred elsewhere is in dereliction of duty; the remedy is to record it and transfer it.

And the power to investigate is not defeated by a jurisdictional error. An investigation is not vitiated merely because the station which conducted it lacked territorial jurisdiction, unless a failure of justice is shown.

The position stated shortly

1. Section 173(1): information relating to a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where it was committed, may be given orally or by electronic communication.

2. Information given electronically is taken on record on being signed within three days. An unsigned communication starts the process but does not become the FIR.

3. The signature requirement prevents anonymous or spurious complaints from setting the criminal law in motion.

4. The words “irrespective of the area” codify the zero FIR. An officer must record information even where the offence was committed outside his jurisdiction, and forward it to the station having jurisdiction.

5. A copy of the information as recorded shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant or the victim.

6. Section 173(3): a preliminary enquiry is available where the offence is punishable with three years or more but less than seven, requires the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent, and must be completed within fourteen days.

7. Its only purpose is to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists — not to verify the truth of the allegation.

8. Section 173(4): a person aggrieved by a refusal to record may send the substance in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police.

9. Territorial jurisdiction does not arise at registration, and an investigation is not vitiated merely because the station lacked it, unless a failure of justice is shown: Satvinder Kaur.

10. A refusal to record on territorial grounds is a dereliction of duty; the officer’s duty is to record and transmit: Punati Ramulu.