Introduction
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) became effective from 01/07/2024. It succeeds the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The basic premise related to first information report (FIR) is unchanged whereby registration is needed in a case of cognizable crime; rather BNSS gives a proper legal status to decisions made by Courts under CrPC and introduces digital and victim oriented provisions. The Supreme Court has elaborated on the difference in Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat, SCC OnLine SC 410 and Anurag Bhatnagar v. State (NCT of Delhi).
Statutory Provisions
A. CrPC – Section 154
Section 154(1): Oral information reduced to writing by officer read over the informant, signed, then entered in Book/GD.
Action on denial: Under Section 154(3), a complaint can be sent via post by the affected person.
Mode: Through spoken or written communication. No zero FIR concept in text of 154, it was judicial as per Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Gov. Of NCT of Delhi), (1999) 8 SCC 728
Obligation to register: If the information received is of a cognizable crime, registration is compulsory.
Copy provision: Provides that under Sec. 154(2), the informer has to be provided with a copy free of charge.
Special provision: Under the new Criminal Law Amendment 2013, in cases of crimes under Sec. 354, 354A-D, 376, 376A-E, and 509 of IPC, the information must be written by a woman officer if it is given by a woman.
B. Under BNSS – Section 173
Section 173(1) states that any information related to the commission of a cognizable crime, regardless of the location of its occurrence, can be given to the officer in charge of the police station either through verbal communication or through any telecommunication gadget. In case of telecommunication, the information must be documented in the record, signed, and preserved within 3 days.
The structure of Section 173 as per BNSS is as follows:
Sec 173(1)- The basic provision of Zero FIR and e-FIR.
Sec 173(2)- The informant has to be provided a free copy of the first information lodged, and audio/video recording is mandatory for the crimes against women as provided under sec 64-79 of BNS; interpreter helps the disabled.
Sec 173(3)- This section introduces the preliminary inquiry as a new provision. If cognizable crime is punishable with 3 year or more but less than 7 years upon permission from the officer of a rank not below that of DySP, police may conduct a preliminary inquiry within 14 days of receiving the information.
Section 173(4) – Remedy on refusal:
If the Station House Officer (SHO) does not register the FIR following Sec 173(1), the person affected can mail the information to the Superintendent of Police (SP). If the SP finds the information reliable and proof of a cognizable crime, the SP can either investigate or allow the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) to do so. As stated in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287 all applications to the Magistrate based on Section 175(3) require an affidavit and proof that Section 173(1) and 173(4) have been complied with.
According to both CrPC and BNSS, when information is received regarding commission of cognizable offence, it is obligatory to file FIR under the provisions of BNSS
Comparative Analysis
Mode of Information and Zero FIR:
The Criminal Procedure Code recognises only the oral and written mode. Section 173(1)of BNSS adds electronic communication as a valid mode, with the condition that it must be signed within three days, thus validating the e-FIR. BNSS has also added the phrase “irrespective of the place of commission of the offence”, thereby making the Zero FIR a statutory requirement. Under the CrPC the Zero FIR was recognised only judicially as per Satvinder Kaur v. State.
Preliminary Inquiry:
Under CrPC, following the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. Of U.P. (2014), the filing of FIR is compulsory, and preliminary inquiry is allowed only in five cases, which are matrimonial issues, business matters, instances of medical negligence, corruption, or cases of extreme delay. Under BNSS Sec 173(3), this arrangement has changed in law – for crimes deserving a penalty of three years or more, yet less than seven years, the preliminary inquiry is to be conducted for 14 days following authorization by the DySP. As indicated by the decision in Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat (2025), this is a means of preventing systematic registration of FIRs based on nonsensical allegations.
Victim-centric safeguards:
In CrPC there was only a provision mentioning a woman officer. Section 173(2) of the BNSS builds on that and maintains the provision of woman officer and states that audio-video recording and also gives facility for disabled persons to have an interpreter. Furthermore, Section 193 (3)(ii) of BNSS along with Sec 173(2) states that the victim/complainant has to be updated about the investigation within 90 days.
Remedies For Refusal:
The hierarchy of recourse remains the same for both laws, which is SHO -> SP -> Magistrate; however, the BNSS is stricter. The aggrieved person can write to the SP under CrPC Sec 154(3) as against Sec 173(4) under the BNSS where SP has the authority to conduct the investigation directly or appoint the Dy.SP. The Supreme Court in the case of Anurag Bhatnagar (July 2025), decided that the magistrate should not ordinarily consider the complaint under section 156(3) of the CrPC / Section 175(3) of the BNSS unless the complainant has exhausted the remedies under 154(1) and 154(3)/ Sec 173(1) and 173(4).
Landmark Cases
1. Lalita Kumari vs. Gov. Of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 (5 Judges Bench)
The Supreme Court stated that registration of FIR under Section 154 is mandatory when a cognizable offense is disclosed, and no preliminary inquiry is permitted except in 5 categories. Inquiry is permitted in limited category cases such as cases of matrimonial issues, commercial disputes, and cases of medical negligence. The law has been changed as per Section 173(3) of the BNSS, which allows for an inquiry of 14 days for offenses punishable by 3 to 7 years.
2. Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Gov. Of NCT of Delhi), (1999) 8 SCC 728
The Supreme Court has established the idea of Zero FIR. It was decided that police cannot stop registering FIR due to jurisdiction issues. If any investigation proves that crime happened somewhere else, FIR needs to be forwarded to the police station covering relevant jurisdiction. This notion is now enshrined as a law in Sec 173(1) BNSS using words “irrespective of area where offence is committed.”
3. Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287
The Supreme Court has ruled that a petition filed under Section 156(3) of the CrPC asking for the registration of an FIR must be accompanied by an affidavit and the petitioner must prove that he has gone through the process specified in Section 154(1) and (3) of the CrPC, i.e., he has approached the SHO and SP. This is to avoid misuse or frivolous complaints. This requirement is now etched in stone by the addition of a proviso to Section 173(4) and Section 175(3) of the BNSS.
4. Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409
According to the Supreme Court, if the police do not file an FIR or if the investigation is not conducted properly, the Magistrate has the authority under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code to direct the police to carry out a proper investigation and to supervise and change the officer in charge. The High Court cannot order an FIR directly in its writ jurisdiction and that the complainant should approach the Magistrate for the same.
5. Imran Pratapgarhi v. The State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 410
The first case that compares the provisions of Section 154 of CrPc and Section 173 of BNSS. The court states that Section 173(3) is an exception to the mandatory registration rule.
5. Conclusion
According to the criminal procedures code, FIR registering has become a clearly defined task, subject to territorial limitations. The BNSS maintains these principles, but also brings the process up to date, keeps in mind transparency, and makes it technology-friendly. In other words, CrPC = Mandatory + Territorial + Physical; BNSS = Mandatory + Zero jurisdiction + Electronic + Preliminary Inquiry Filtering + Protecting Victim’s Rights. The intent behind this legislation is to reduce cases of reluctance to register FIR, bring Digital India to criminal justice, and reduce the number of unnecessary FIRs for mid-level crimes through the preliminary inquiry, which has a specific deadline.
Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here) and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications