First Information Report (FIR) and Criminal Procedure: The Foundation of India’s Criminal Justice System

Introduction

When a crime occurs, the aggrieved person goes to the police station and lodges a report containing all the necessary details of the incident. This report is known as the First Information Report (FIR). Once the FIR is filed, the police investigate the case, collect all the necessary evidence and documents, and thereafter the case is placed before the court.

Previously, under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the provision for an FIR was governed by Section 154 CrPC, but under the new act it is covered under Section 173 of the BNSS. This blog examines what an FIR is, the procedural framework surrounding it, the key judicial pronouncements that have shaped its interpretation, and what all of this means in practice for an ordinary citizen.

Main Discussion

What is an FIR?

An FIR is a written statement prepared by the police upon receiving information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence. Cognizable offences are serious in nature, and police involvement is necessarily required, as the police can arrest the accused without prior permission from a magistrate. Offences such as murder, rape, and robbery are considered cognizable offences, and the term used for the opposite category is a non-cognizable offence, for which prior permission of a magistrate is required, as such offences are less serious in nature. Offences such as hurt and public nuisance fall under this category.

Procedure for Cognizable Offences

The first and foremost step required under criminal law is the registration of the FIR. The steps involved are as follows:

1. Receipt of information, whether oral or electronic, that a cognizable offence has been committed.
2. Registration of the FIR by the officer in charge of the police station.
3. Investigation: After registration, the police investigate the case, collect evidence, and conduct forensic examination.
4. Chargesheet: The police prepare a full report of the case in the form of a chargesheet and submit it before the magistrate.
5. Trial: the accused is tried before the court.
6. Judgment: passed by the court having jurisdiction over the case, whereby the accused is convicted or acquitted after considering all the necessary details of the case.

However, an FIR is not by itself proof of guilt; it is merely the starting point from which the police begin their investigation into the reported offence.

Key Features

The new laws that replaced the CrPC with the BNSS have brought several changes to how an FIR functions:

1. Information can now be given electronically; it shall be reduced to writing, taken on record, and signed within three days by the person giving it.
2. The concept of Zero FIR allows a person to report a cognizable offence at any police station, regardless of where the offence occurred. The police station that receives the complaint registers it without a serial number and then forwards it to the police station having appropriate jurisdiction.
3. A preliminary inquiry may be conducted, with the permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, for offences punishable with imprisonment of three years or more but less than seven years. The preliminary inquiry must be conducted within 14 days to determine whether a prima facie case exists.
4. A free copy is given to the informant and the victim, which widens victim participation compared to the earlier regime.
5. If a police officer refuses to file the FIR, the aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police in writing, by post, and if this also fails, they can approach the jurisdictional magistrate, who can direct an investigation.

Legal Provisions

• Section 173 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023– This provision deals with the first step for the institution of a case, i.e., registration of information in respect of cognizable offences. Sub-section (1) deals with the basic details to be recorded; sub-section (3) deals with the preliminary inquiry for offences punishable with imprisonment of three years or more but less than seven years; and sub-section (4) provides the remedy of approaching the Superintendent of Police if the officer in charge of the police station refuses to register an FIR.
• Section 175(3) BNSS– This provision allows the magistrate, after considering an application supported by an affidavit under sub-section (4) of Section 173, to direct an investigation into the case.
• Section 210, BNSS– This provision relates to the cognizance of offences by the magistrate (inherited in substance from Section 190 read with related CrPC provisions).
• Section 105 BNSS– This provision mandates audio-visual recording during the course of search and seizure.
• Section 176(3) BNSS– This provision requires mandatory videography of the crime scene for serious offences, reflecting procedural transparency at the investigation stage.

Relevant Judicial Pronouncements

• Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014):

In this case, Lalita Kumari’s father filed a complaint that his daughter had been kidnapped, but the police refused to register the FIR. The Supreme Court held that registration of an FIR is mandatory when the information relates to a cognizable offence, and that no preliminary inquiry is needed before registering an FIR, except in certain cases such as matrimonial or family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases, and cases involving unexplained and inordinate delay in reporting. This judgment remains the guiding precedent even under the BNSS regime, and courts continue to test the new preliminary-inquiry provision under Section 173(3) against its principles.

• State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992):

While primarily known for laying down guidelines on when criminal proceedings can be quashed under the High Court’s inherent powers, this judgment also emphasized that an FIR must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence for the police to be obligated to register and investigate it, and that false allegations do not meet this threshold.

• Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014):

Although centered on the misuse of arrest powers, particularly under dowry-related provisions, this ruling is closely tied to FIR practice because it cautioned police against mechanical or automatic arrest merely because an FIR has been registered, requiring officers to record reasons and satisfy specific conditions before arresting an accused.

• Recent High Court trend under BNSS:

Courts, including the Kerala High Court, have reaffirmed that police cannot decline to register an FIR merely on technical grounds, such as the complaint being unsigned or forwarded from abroad, once the information discloses a cognizable offence, reflecting continuity of the Lalita Kumari principle into the BNSS framework.

Practical Analysis

For an ordinary citizen, the shift from CrPC to BNSS is meant to make reporting crime faster and more accessible, but it also introduces a few points worth understanding practically:

• Reporting is now easier, but follow-through still matters: The E-FIR and Zero FIR provisions have removed jurisdictional and physical barriers to reporting, but the informant should verify that the complaint is actually converted into a registered FIR and should obtain a free copy of it.
• The preliminary inquiry window can be misused if not watched closely: The fourteen-day preliminary inquiry for mid-range offences is meant to filter out frivolous complaints, but it can also become a tool for delay if officers stretch the timeline or use it for offences that should be registered immediately. Citizens and lawyers should be alert to this possibility and be ready to invoke the remedy of writing to the Superintendent of Police if registration is unreasonably withheld.
• Documentation habits protect both sides. Whether an individual is an informant, a victim, or an accused, understanding the terms of the FIR, the sections invoked, and the date and time of registration is often decisive at later stages, including bail applications, quashing petitions, and trial strategy.

References

1. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 46 of 2023)
2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3. Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1.
4. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
5. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.
6. Drishti Judiciary, “Difference between FIR Registration Provisions U/S 154 CrPC & U/S 173 BNSS”.
7. Legal Service India, “Difference Between FIR Registration Provisions Under Section 154 CrPC & Section 173 BNSS: A Comprehensive Analysis”.
8. Drishti Judiciary, “Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023”.