FIR: Its Significance and Procedural Steps Post-Recording under BNSS | Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita

For a criminal trial to start, the registration of an FIR becomes necessary in the cognizable offences, which allows the police officer to arrest without a warrant; when it comes to the non-cognizable offences, the police cannot arrest without a warrant from the Magistrate [Section 174(2)]. It is considered one of the most important steps in the entire process. An FIR (First Information Report) can be lodged by an informant or complainant, who need not necessarily be the victim of the offence.

Registration of FIR

Section 173 of Chapter XIII of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (previously, Section 154 of the CrPC) talks about the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence given to the officer in charge of the police station. The newly introduced Sanhita (hereinafter “Act”) further corresponds to the concept of the Zero FIR, which means that irrespective of the area where the offence is committed, the information may be given orally or by electronic communication to the police officer in charge of the police station.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., held that the police officer is duty-bound to lodge the FIR, given the information discloses the offence, which is cognizable. This principle aligns with Section 154(1) of the CrPC. There cannot be more than one FIR for the same offence. However, the court later clarified that multiple FIRs are allowed but only on the precondition that they relate to the different incidents of the same transaction. [Surender Kaushik v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2013)]

The FIR inherently have to be different from each other even in that situation too.

Documentation and Procedure

As per Section 173(1) of the BNSS, the information provided by the informant shall be documented by the officer or as per their direction, and the same shall also need to be read out to the person who is making such a complaint (informant) [Section 173(1)(i)]. As for the electronically lodged FIR, it is required to be signed by the informant within three days of such information [Section 173 (1)(ii)].

As per Section 173(2) of the Act, the officer is required to provide a copy of the information that is being recorded under 173(1), which needs to be provided to the informant of the complainant without any cost.

Section 174 of the Act discusses information as to non-cognizable cases and the investigation of such cases. In such cases, the police officer must record the information in a prescribed book and direct the informant to approach the Magistrate.

Evidentiary Value of FIR

When it comes to the evidentiary value of the FIR, Section 160 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) (Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act), says that the FIR can be used to corroborate the complainant’s testimony. However, an FIR is not substantive evidence and cannot be treated as conclusive proof of guilt.

Procedure after recording the FIR under BNSS

Preliminary Inquiry for Cognizable Offences Punishable by 3 to 7 Years

As per 173 (3) of the Act, after receiving such a complaint proceeding in the matter within fourteen days or about 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 shall proceed to conduct a preliminary enquiry to check whether there exists a prima facie case provided that the same needs be done with the prior permission of the officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). If there exists a prima facie case, then the officer shall proceed with the investigation.

Zero FIR

When it pertains to the Zero FIR, the officer needs to forward such FIR to the police station, which has jurisdiction over the place of the incident. Thereafter, the same needs to be lodged like a regular FIR; after that, the Station Head Officer (SHO) shall assign the investigating officer (IO) to take further action in the concerned FIR.

After fulfilling the requirements under Section 173 of the BNSS, the officer records the FIR and prefixes the FIR number with "Zero" to indicate that it is a Zero FIR.

Important Judgments

One of the landmark judgements for the FIR was Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2013), where the court extensively laid down the guidelines regarding the registration of the FIR. The court held that no preliminary inquiry is permissible in a situation where the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.

1. The registration of the FIR is mandatory under section 154 of the CrPC (173 of BNSS).
2. In the situation where the said information doesn’t disclose the offence being cognizable, but shows the necessity of the inquiry, a preliminary enquiry has to be conducted to ascertain the nature of the offence.
3. If the same indicates the nature of the offence being cognizable, the FIR has to be registered. If the preliminary concludes that the complaint needs to be closed, it is the duty of the officer in charge to inform the complainant within one week of such proceeding.
4. The police officer cannot avoid the registration of the FIR; on the occurrence of the same, action must be taken against officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
5. The motive of preliminary inquiry is not to ascertain the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to know whether the offence is cognizable or not.
6. The Court held that for a preliminary enquiry to be conducted, will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, the court categorized the cases in the following manner: (a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) cases where there is an unnecessary delay.
7. The preliminary enquiry shall be time-bound and should not exceed 7 days. To protect the rights of the accused and the complainant, the delay, if there is any, shall be recorded in the diary.
8. The General Diary/Station Diary shall record all information related to cognizable offences, including decisions to conduct a preliminary inquiry.

The Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), laid down the instances when the court can quash an FIR if the court finds that:-

• There can be no prima facie case which can be made against the accused.
• If the allegations in the FIR don’t show any cognizable offence.
• If the complaint or evidence collected doesn’t make a case against the accused or does not disclose the commission of the offence.
• If the FIR is registered out of malice or mala fide intent, with an ulterior motive for defaming the accused because of a personal grudge.
• Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate
• If the allegations in the FIR are absurd, no prudent person will make such accusations.
• When there is a legal bar, as prescribed in the provisions of the code.

The Supreme Court, in the case of the State of Andhra Pradesh v. Punati Ramulu (1993), held that a delayed FIR can still be valid if a reasonable explanation for the delay is provided. The Court emphasized that the delay should not automatically invalidate the FIR and that the context and circumstances, such as possible obstacles or intimidation faced by the complainant, should be considered.

When the question arose of whether the High Court has inherent jurisdiction in quashing a criminal proceeding, FIR, or complaint, the Supreme Court, in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), held that, unlike the criminal court, the High Court's power when it comes to the quash an FIR or criminal proceeding complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different or rather broad. The same shall be used to prevent misuse of the legal process or secure justice. Heinous crimes like murder, rape, or corruption, which impact society, cannot be quashed even if parties settle. However, cases which are to some extent civil in nature, like family or financial disputes, can be quashed if the parties have resolved their issues.

Conclusion

The FIR is a foundational document in criminal investigations, serving as the starting point for the judicial process. The court, as usual, time and again, has interfered in making the approach which focuses on the protection of individual rights while balancing the need to maintain the integrity of the legal system, keeping in mind all possible scenarios to avoid the technical or procedural inconsistency vitiating the entire trial process. Its registration, documentation, and evidentiary value are governed by clear statutory provisions under the BNSS and the BSA.

References

[1] Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) & Anr, AIR 1999 SC 3596

[2] Surender Kaushik v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2013 (5) SCW 1140

[3] Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.& Ors, AIR 2014 SC 187

[4] State of Haryana & Ors v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604

[5] State of Andhra Pradesh v. Punati Ramulu & Others, AIR 1993 SC 2644

[6] Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr, 2012 AIR SCW 5333

[7] Mandatory Registration of FIR, Available Here

[8] Zero FIR Registration, Available Here

[9] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023