The concept of a “Zero FIR” has emerged as a crucial provision within the Indian legal system, allowing for the immediate registration of FIRs (First Information Reports) irrespective of the location of the offence, and providing a significant shift towards facilitating justice, particularly in cases involving serious crimes. Although Zero FIR has been a practice in India for some time, it lacks statutory support, making its place in the legal framework an area of ongoing development and debate.
What is Zero FIR?
Zero FIR allows individuals to report a cognizable offence at any police station, regardless of jurisdiction. This means that if an offence occurs outside the territorial limits of a particular police station, the police officer in charge (SHO) can register it as a “Zero FIR.” Following registration, this FIR can then be transferred to the jurisdictional police station for further investigation. This concept has particularly strengthened legal recourse for women, as it ensures that individuals can report offences like sexual assault or other serious crimes without needing to travel to the precise jurisdiction where the crime occurred.
Circulars Mandating Zero FIR in Kerala
In Kerala, the concept of Zero FIR has been formalized through directions issued by the State Police Chief in a 2020 circular. The circular mandates that FIRs, including Zero FIRs, should be registered immediately upon receiving information about a cognizable offence against women. This circular specifies that no police station can deny FIR registration based on jurisdictional issues, and any Zero FIR must be transferred to the proper police station within 24 hours. This initiative aims to eliminate delays in justice for crimes involving women and ensure timely investigation.
Origins and Misconceptions Around Zero FIR
A common misconception is that Zero FIR was formally introduced after the 2013 recommendations by the Justice Verma Committee, which was formed following the 2012 Nirbhaya case. While this committee did recommend broader reforms to combat sexual violence, including improved victim protection and harsher penalties for rape, there is no explicit recommendation for Zero FIR registration in the report. Additionally, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, which emerged after the committee’s report, did not include any provision specifically for Zero FIR registration.
Despite this, some courts, like the Delhi High Court in Kirti Vashisht v. State (2019), have remarked that Zero FIR was a recommendation of the Justice Verma Committee. This judicial observation directed police in the Delhi NCT to allow Zero FIR registration and transfer the FIR to the concerned police station, indicating that courts see this as an important part of crime reporting and investigation.
Introduction of Zero FIR Under BNSS
In July 2024, the new Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), introduced Section 173. This section incorporates Zero FIR by allowing the registration of cognizable offences at any police station, regardless of location. While this inclusion is significant, the term “Zero FIR” itself is not explicitly used. The section, however, does not mandate the transfer of the Zero FIR to the police station with jurisdiction, an essential aspect that would streamline case handling and avoid unnecessary procedural challenges.
Key Provisions in BNSS and Areas of Concern
Under BNSS, Section 173 mandates that the SHO registers the FIR, regardless of jurisdiction. If a cognizable offence is committed outside the police station’s limits, the officer must still record the information and proceed with the investigation if the offence falls under specified severity categories, following a preliminary inquiry to establish a prima facie case. This differs from the precedent set in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014), where the Supreme Court ruled that an FIR should only be registered after preliminary inquiry. Under BNSS, the preliminary inquiry is conducted after FIR registration, diverging from established precedent and creating potential contradictions with other sections.
For example, Section 175 of BNSS preserves the traditional jurisdictional powers of police stations, similar to Section 156(1) of CrPC. However, under BNSS, a police station without territorial jurisdiction, upon registering a Zero FIR, has the power to conduct an investigation if there is a prima facie case, even if the offence occurred in another state. This provision raises concerns as it could lead to logistical complications, particularly if the investigating officer lacks the resources or familiarity with the local context of the offence location.
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Zero FIR
The Ministry of Home Affairs has issued an SOP to clarify the procedure for handling Zero FIRs under Section 173. The SOP recommends that a police station initially registering a Zero FIR should transfer it to the appropriate police station to avoid procedural delays. However, the SOP is merely suggestive and lacks the binding force of statutory law, which may hinder uniform implementation across different states. Without clear statutory support, reliance on an SOP can lead to inconsistent practices.
Judicial Interpretations and Case Law
Indian courts have addressed the procedural obligations surrounding Zero FIR. In State of A.P. v. Punati Ramulu (1993), the Supreme Court ruled that an SHO cannot refuse FIR registration due to lack of jurisdiction and must transfer the case. Subsequent cases, such as Satvinder Kaur v. State (NCT of Delhi) (1999), upheld this position but also remarked that SHO should conduct investigations despite jurisdictional limits, a view that introduces complexities in practice.
Similarly, in Naresh Kavarchand Khatri v. State of Gujarat (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the police station in Vadodara should handle the investigation without transferring it to a station in Delhi, emphasizing the importance of maintaining jurisdictional consistency to avoid delays and obstacles in the legal process.
The Need for Further Legislative Clarity
Given the evolving landscape of the Zero FIR concept, clearer legislative action is necessary to resolve the potential conflicts and procedural ambiguities. Under BNSS, Section 173 should be amended to explicitly mandate the transfer of Zero FIRs to the appropriate police station. Moreover, Section 183 of BNSS, which stipulates that confessions and statements should be recorded by a Magistrate within the district where the FIR was registered, should be revised to allow for such proceedings in the district where the offence occurred. This would align the procedural aspects of Zero FIRs with the larger framework of justice.
Conclusion
Zero FIR has proven to be a transformative concept in Indian law, enhancing access to justice, particularly for victims of gender-based violence. Its integration into BNSS marks a significant step, yet further amendments are essential to ensure that this provision functions as intended. Incorporating statutory requirements for Zero FIR transfer, addressing jurisdictional inconsistencies, and establishing nationwide procedural clarity would empower this legal tool to serve its purpose effectively.