Zero FIR — What It Is and How to Get One Registered Anywhere in India

This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.

Overview

A person who wants to report a crime is sometimes told at the police station that “this is not our area — go to the police station where the offence happened.” For decades, this jurisdictional excuse delayed the registration of First Information Reports (FIRs), particularly in cases where a victim was found far from the place of the offence, or where the crime spanned more than one police station’s limits. The concept of a Zero FIR developed to close this gap, and it now has express statutory backing under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which came into force on 1 July 2024 in place of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

This article explains what a Zero FIR is, the BNSS provision that governs it, how e-FIR (electronic reporting) fits into the same framework, the constitutional mandate behind compulsory FIR registration, and common pitfalls a complainant should be aware of.

What Is a Zero FIR

A Zero FIR is an FIR registered by a police station for a cognizable offence, even though the offence did not occur within that police station’s territorial jurisdiction. The registering station does not conduct the investigation; instead, it records the complaint, assigns it the case number “0” (hence the name), and forwards it to the police station that does have territorial jurisdiction. That station then re-registers it as a regular FIR, under its own running serial number, and takes up the investigation.

The practical value of a Zero FIR is straightforward: a victim or informant does not have to travel to, or be turned away by, the police station within whose limits the offence was committed. This is particularly significant in cases involving offences against women and children, road accidents, and situations where the victim is in no condition to travel — the complaint can be lodged wherever the victim or informant happens to be.

The Statutory Basis — Section 173 of the BNSS

Under the CrPC, Zero FIR was not defined in the text of the statute. It developed through police practice and Ministry of Home Affairs guidance, reinforced by judicial pronouncements. The BNSS changed this: Section 173 — the provision on “Information in cognizable cases,” replacing Section 154 of the CrPC — now expressly states that information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence may be given to an officer in charge of a police station “irrespective of the area where the offence is committed.” This removes any jurisdictional pre-condition to registration at the first instance, and is the statutory foundation on which the Zero FIR practice now rests.

Section 173 has four broad parts:

Sub-section (1) — recording the information. Information about a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where it was committed, may be given orally or by electronic communication to the officer in charge of a police station. If given orally, it must be reduced to writing, read over to the informant, and signed by the person giving it. A proviso requires that where the information is given by a woman regarding certain offences (including sexual offences), it must be recorded by a woman police officer, and — where the person against whom the offence is alleged is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled — the recording must be videographed and the informant’s statement recorded before a Magistrate as soon as possible.
Sub-section (2) — copy to the informant. A copy of the recorded information must be given, free of cost, forthwith, to the informant or the victim.
Sub-section (3) — preliminary enquiry for mid-range offences. For a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more but less than seven years, the officer in charge may, with the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, conduct a preliminary enquiry within fourteen days to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists, before deciding whether to proceed with an FIR and investigation.
Sub-section (4) — remedy against refusal. If an officer in charge refuses to record information about a cognizable offence, the aggrieved person may send the substance of the information in writing to the Superintendent of Police, who — if satisfied that the information discloses a cognizable offence — must either investigate the case personally or direct an investigation by a subordinate officer.

Sub-section (3) is a departure from the pre-BNSS position, where registration on disclosure of a cognizable offence was treated as mandatory with no discretion to conduct a preliminary enquiry first (see the discussion of the Lalita Kumari mandate below). Under Section 173(3), for offences in the three-to-seven-year band, a preliminary enquiry is now expressly permitted as a scrutiny step before an FIR is necessarily registered.

e-FIR — Electronic Reporting

Section 173(1) also recognises reporting “by electronic communication.” Where information about a cognizable offence is given electronically, it is taken on record by the officer in charge only once it is signed by the informant within three days of giving it. This is commonly referred to as an e-FIR. In practice, several states have rolled out online portals allowing a complainant to submit information electronically in the first instance, with the requirement of an in-person visit to sign and complete the formal record within the three-day window. A complainant who files electronically should follow up promptly — the information is not treated as validly recorded on the police file until the signature requirement is met.

The Lalita Kumari Mandate

The constitutional and jurisprudential backbone for compulsory FIR registration is the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1. A five-judge bench held that registration of an FIR is mandatory if the information given to the police discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, and that no preliminary enquiry is permissible in such a case — the police officer has “no other option except to enter the substance” of the information in the prescribed form. The Court carved out a narrow category of situations (such as matrimonial or family disputes, commercial or medical negligence matters, and cases involving abnormal delay) where a limited preliminary enquiry may be conducted, but only to ascertain whether the information discloses a cognizable offence, and such an enquiry must be completed within a defined, short period, with the outcome reflected in a general diary entry.

Lalita Kumari is the reason a citizen cannot lawfully be turned away from a police station on the ground that the alleged offence “does not look serious enough to register.” Section 173 of the BNSS operates against this constitutional backdrop: sub-section (1) codifies mandatory, jurisdiction-free registration for cognizable offences generally, while sub-section (3) carves out a defined, time-bound preliminary-enquiry window specifically for the three-to-seven-year offence band — narrower in scope than a general discretion to inquire before registering.

How to Get a Zero FIR Registered

Approach any police station with the information about the cognizable offence, regardless of where it occurred. The officer in charge cannot refuse to record it merely because the offence falls outside that station’s local limits.
Ensure the information is reduced to writing (if given orally) and read back before signing, or file it electronically and complete the signature formality within three days if using an e-FIR facility.
Obtain the free copy of the recorded FIR — this is a statutory entitlement under Section 173(2) and should not be conditional on any payment or further formality.
The Zero FIR is then transferred to the police station having territorial jurisdiction over the place of the offence, where it is re-registered with a regular serial number and the investigation proceeds.
If registration is refused, the complainant may write to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4). If that does not resolve the matter, an application for a direction to register an FIR and investigate can be made to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS (the successor to Section 156(3) of the CrPC).

Common Pitfalls

Applies only to cognizable offences. A Zero FIR mechanism is available only where the alleged offence is cognizable — one in which the police can investigate and, where necessary, arrest without prior Magistrate authorisation. For non-cognizable offences, the ordinary procedure of a complaint to a Magistrate, or an entry in the non-cognizable register, applies instead.
The “0” number is not permanent. A Zero FIR does not remain numbered “0” — the receiving station forwards it for transfer, and it is the jurisdictional station’s FIR number that becomes the operative one for the case going forward. A complainant should track the transfer and note the new FIR number once assigned.
e-FIR is not complete without the signature step. An electronic complaint that is never followed up with the required signature within three days is not treated as validly recorded.
Jurisdiction cannot be used as a ground for refusal, but genuineness still can be tested. Section 173(1) removes jurisdiction as an excuse; it does not prevent the police from later transferring or, in the defined three-to-seven-year band, conducting a time-bound preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) before full registration.
Refusal has a defined escalation path. A complainant facing refusal should not assume there is no remedy — Section 173(4) (Superintendent of Police) and, thereafter, Section 175(3) (Magistrate) provide statutory routes to compel registration and investigation.

Takeaway

Section 173 of the BNSS gives the long-standing Zero FIR practice, and the newer e-FIR facility, an express statutory footing, and does so against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s mandate in Lalita Kumari that registration of a cognizable offence is not a matter of police discretion. A person reporting a cognizable offence is entitled to have it recorded at any police station, receive a free copy, and — if refused — escalate first to the Superintendent of Police and then, if necessary, to the jurisdictional Magistrate.

Useful Resources

Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel. Advocate Akhil Singh and this website are not liable for any actions taken based on the content provided herein.