Quick answer
No. Under Section 173(1) B.N.S.S., information about a cognizable offence may be given to the officer in charge of a police station "irrespective of the area where the offence is committed". A police station therefore cannot refuse to record it merely because the crime happened outside its limits. This is popularly called a Zero FIR. Even under the old CrPC, the Supreme Court held in Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) (1999) that lack of territorial jurisdiction is no ground to refuse to record an FIR or to quash an investigation at that stage.
The law
Section 173(1) B.N.S.S. replaces Section 154 CrPC. The words "irrespective of the area where the offence is committed" are new and put the Zero FIR principle into the statute. Section 175(2) B.N.S.S. (old Section 156(2) CrPC) adds that no proceeding of a police officer in a cognizable case can be challenged at any stage on the ground that the officer was not empowered to investigate it.
Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), (1999) 8 SCC 728, Supreme Court of India, 5 October 1999 (K.T. Thomas and M.B. Shah, JJ.; judgment by Shah, J.). The wife lodged an FIR in Delhi under Sections 406 and 498A IPC (old law: criminal breach of trust and cruelty), and the Delhi High Court quashed it on the ground that the Delhi police lacked territorial jurisdiction (power over the area), because the dowry articles had been entrusted and the cause of action had arisen at Patiala. The Supreme Court set aside the order and held that the station house officer has statutory authority to investigate any cognizable case for which an FIR is lodged; that at the investigation stage there can be no interference on the ground that the investigating officer lacks territorial jurisdiction; and that if, after investigation, the officer finds the offence was not committed within the station's area, the officer reports under Section 170 CrPC and forwards the case to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance, and the FIR can be forwarded to the police station having jurisdiction. This does not mean that the police can refuse to record the FIR or to investigate.
Essential points
- The offence reported must be cognizable; Section 173 applies only to cognizable cases.
- The receiving station must record the information; refusal can be challenged under Section 173(4) by writing to the Superintendent of Police and then applying to the Magistrate.
- Section 173 does not itself lay down a transfer procedure. The basis for sending the case to the police station or Magistrate having jurisdiction comes from Satvinder Kaur, which relied on the scheme of Sections 156 and 170 CrPC (now Sections 175 and 190 B.N.S.S.).
- Where the place of the offence is uncertain or the offence occurs during a journey, the place-of-trial rules are flexible: under Section 203 B.N.S.S. (old Section 183 CrPC), an offence committed during a journey may be tried by a court through whose local jurisdiction the person or thing passed.
Old law and new law
| Point | CrPC (old law) | B.N.S.S. |
|---|---|---|
| Basis of Zero FIR | Case law, such as Satvinder Kaur (1999) | Express words in Section 173(1) |
| Bar on challenge for want of power | Section 156(2) | Section 175(2) |
| Offence during a journey | Section 183 | Section 203 |
Example
Neha is robbed during a long train journey and does not know in which district the robbery took place. When the train stops, she reports it at the nearest police station. Robbery is cognizable, so the officer must record her information under Section 173(1) B.N.S.S. even if the robbery may have happened elsewhere. The case can later be sent to the police station having jurisdiction, and Section 203 allows trial by a court through whose area she passed during the journey.
For other leading procedure judgments, see B.N.S.S. Case Law.
Exam point
Zero FIR: Section 173(1) B.N.S.S. allows information about a cognizable offence "irrespective of the area where the offence is committed"; Satvinder Kaur (1999) held that territorial jurisdiction is no ground to refuse an FIR or stop an investigation.
