Zero Fir Continuation In Bnss
🔹 What is Zero FIR?
Zero FIR refers to the practice where a First Information Report (FIR) can be registered at any police station, irrespective of the jurisdiction of the offense, particularly when the police station where the crime actually occurred refuses or delays registering the FIR.
The term "Zero" implies the FIR is recorded without a specific jurisdiction or in a police station that has no territorial jurisdiction over the place of the alleged crime.
This concept is meant to protect the victim’s right to lodge a complaint and ensure timely investigation, preventing denial of justice.
Once registered, the FIR is usually transferred to the appropriate police station with jurisdiction.
🔹 Continuation of Zero FIR in BNS
BNS, like earlier laws, recognizes the right of a victim to file an FIR anywhere, especially in cases of serious crimes or emergencies.
The law mandates immediate registration of such FIRs and swift transfer to the proper jurisdiction.
Zero FIR ensures that no delay occurs in initiating criminal proceedings, and the investigation starts promptly.
Continuation refers to the investigation and prosecution initiated on the basis of Zero FIR, even after transfer to the correct police station.
🔹 Legal Basis for Zero FIR
Under BNS and earlier laws, Section 154 CrPC mandates that police must register FIR on receiving information about a cognizable offense.
The Supreme Court and High Courts have held that refusal or delay to register an FIR is a violation of fundamental rights.
Zero FIR is a judicial innovation to uphold this right.
🔹 Landmark Case Laws on Zero FIR and its Continuation
1. Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh (2013) 4 SCC 1
Facts:
The Supreme Court laid down guidelines for mandatory registration of FIR in cognizable offenses.
Issue:
Whether police can refuse to register an FIR in a cognizable offense?
Judgment:
The court held that refusal to register FIR is illegal. Police must register FIR immediately on receiving information of a cognizable offense. The concept of Zero FIR was reinforced to ensure no victim is denied the right to lodge complaint.
Significance:
This judgment formalized the Zero FIR practice, emphasizing immediate FIR registration without jurisdictional delay.
2. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335
Facts:
The court examined abuse of power by police refusing to register FIR.
Issue:
Whether police can arbitrarily refuse FIR registration?
Judgment:
The court held that FIR registration is mandatory under CrPC and refusal or delay is unlawful. Zero FIR practice was supported to safeguard victim’s rights.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle of mandatory FIR registration and protection against police inaction.
3. Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981) 1 SCC 627
Facts:
The victim faced refusal from the local police to register FIR.
Issue:
Can an FIR be registered outside the jurisdictional police station?
Judgment:
Supreme Court allowed the registration of FIR at any police station where the victim approaches first, especially if jurisdictional police refuses.
Significance:
Early judicial recognition of Zero FIR as a tool to protect victims.
4. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384
Facts:
Delay in FIR registration resulted in deterioration of evidence.
Issue:
Does delay or refusal in FIR registration violate constitutional rights?
Judgment:
The court held that delay in FIR registration affects the investigation and violates Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). Zero FIR helps prevent such violations.
Significance:
Emphasized the importance of timely FIR registration to uphold fair investigation and victim’s rights.
5. Bhagwan Das v. State of Haryana (1984) 3 SCC 465
Facts:
The accused challenged the FIR on grounds of jurisdiction.
Issue:
Can jurisdictional challenges delay investigation started on Zero FIR?
Judgment:
Court held that investigation must continue uninterrupted even if jurisdictional issues arise, and FIR should not be quashed on mere jurisdictional grounds.
Significance:
Upheld continuation of investigation after Zero FIR registration.
6. T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181
Facts:
The victim’s complaint was initially refused by the local police; FIR was lodged at another police station.
Issue:
Validity of FIR registered at a police station outside territorial jurisdiction?
Judgment:
Supreme Court upheld validity and continuation of such FIRs, stating victim’s right to lodge FIR anywhere must be protected.
Significance:
Confirmed Zero FIR practice and continuation of investigation.
🔹 Summary: Principles on Zero FIR and its Continuation in BNS
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Mandatory FIR Registration | Police must register FIR for cognizable offenses immediately. |
| Right to Lodge FIR Anywhere (Zero FIR) | Victim can file FIR at any police station, irrespective of jurisdiction. |
| Transfer to Proper Police Station | After Zero FIR, police must transfer FIR to jurisdictional police station. |
| Uninterrupted Investigation | Investigation continues regardless of jurisdictional challenges. |
| Judicial Safeguards | Courts protect victim’s rights by enforcing prompt FIR registration and investigation. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments