Section 154 CrPC vs Section 173 BNSS: Zero FIR & E-FIR Rules

Authored by: Advocate Kishan Kumar (Senior Trial, Criminal Defence & Appellate Advocate)

1. The Jurisprudential Evolution from Section 154 CrPC to Section 173 BNSS

Under Section 154 of the CrPC 1973, an officer in charge of a police station was legally obligated to reduce every oral or written information disclosing a cognizable offense into writing, read it over to the informant, enter it in the station book (general diary), and supply a copy to the informant. However, Section 154 suffered from acute structural deficiencies that alienated victims of crime:

• Territorial Jurisdictional Runarounds: Police stations routinely turned away distraught victims of accidents, rapes, and robberies with the phrase "Yeh hamare ilaqe ka mamla nahi hai" (This is outside our jurisdictional beats), causing critical forensic evidence to perish during the golden hours.
• Absence of Statutory E-FIR Framework: While state-level police departments launched portal apps (such as Delhi Police e-FIR or Haryana Police HarSamay), they lacked central statutory sanction. Defense advocates frequently challenged electronic complaints as unauthenticated hearsay.
• Weaponization of Immediate FIRs: Under the strict interpretation of Lalita Kumari v. Govt of UP (2014), police felt compelled to lodge immediate FIRs in matrimonial, commercial, and property disputes, leading to immediate harassment and arbitrary arrests of entire families before any preliminary fact-checking occurred.

Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 systematically addresses each of these historical shortcomings through clear statutory text.

2. Statutory Codification of Zero FIR: Section 173(1) BNSS Mandate

The concept of "Zero FIR"—where a police station registers an FIR without assigning a regular station crime number (assigning the serial number "0") and conducts immediate medical or forensic collection before transferring the file to the jurisdictional police station—was previously a creature of executive guidelines and judicial rulings.

Section 173(1) BNSS elevates Zero FIR into an absolute statutory mandate:

"Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where the offence is committed, may be given orally or by electronic communication to an officer in charge of a police station..."

The insertion of the phrase "irrespective of the area where the offence is committed" removes police discretion entirely. A station house officer who refuses to register a cognizable complaint citing territorial boundaries is now in direct violation of statutory law and risks disciplinary suspension and prosecution under Section 199 BNS (public servant disobeying law).

3. Electronic FIR (E-FIR) & The Mandatory 3-Day Signature Rule

In step with India's digital governance evolution, Section 173(1) BNSS statutorily formalizes electronic communication for lodging criminal complaints. However, to prevent phishing, anonymous defamation, and spoofed cyber-harassment complaints, the Parliament incorporated a critical safeguard in the proviso to Section 173(1):

"Provided that if the information is given by electronic communication, it shall be taken on record by him on being signed within three days by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf."

This statutory mechanism establishes the following strict operating protocol:

1. Submission of Digital Complaint: An aggrieved citizen may email or submit an electronic complaint via designated state police portals or official digital channels.
2. Temporary Docketing: The station officer enters the electronic communication into the daily diary / station register.
3. Mandatory 3-Day Verification Window: Within exactly 3 days (72 hours) of electronic transmission, the informant must physically visit the police station to sign the complaint, or execute a valid digital/electronic signature compliant with Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA 2023).
4. Legal Consequence of Default: If the informant fails to authenticate the complaint within 3 days, the electronic communication will not ripen into a registered FIR and cannot trigger criminal investigative machinery.

4. Section 173(3) BNSS Preliminary Inquiry: 14-Day Filter for Mid-Tier Crimes

Perhaps the most significant procedural divergence between the CrPC and the BNSS is contained in Section 173(3) BNSS. Under CrPC, the general rule was immediate FIR registration. Under BNSS 2023, the legislature created a deliberate statutory filter for offences carrying intermediate sentences:

"Without prejudice to the provisions contained in section 175, on receipt of information relating to the commission of any cognizable offence, which is made punishable for three years or more but less than seven years, the officer in charge of the police station may with the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, considering the nature and gravity of the offence—
(i) proceed to conduct preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter, which shall be completed within a period of fourteen days; or
(ii) proceed to investigate when there exists a prima facie case."

This provision creates two distinct procedural categories:

• Offences Punishable with 7+ Years (Heinous Offences): For rape, murder, dacoity, kidnapping, and severe economic syndicates, immediate FIR registration remains strictly mandatory. No preliminary inquiry is permissible.
• Offences Punishable with 3 to 7 Years (Mid-Tier Offences): Covers Section 85 BNS (cruelty/498A), Section 318(4) BNS (cheating/420), criminal breach of trust, and commercial fraud. Here, police can hold a 14-day preliminary inquiry—provided they secure written permission from an officer not below DSP rank.
• Offences Punishable with Less than 3 Years: Ordinary cognizable investigation protocols apply unless categorized as non-cognizable.

5. The Lalita Kumari Precedent vs Section 173(3) BNSS Balancing Act

In the historic 5-judge Constitution Bench ruling in Lalita Kumari v. Govt of UP (2014) 2 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 if the information discloses a cognizable offence. The Court carved out limited exceptions for preliminary inquiries within 7 days in matrimonial disputes, commercial disputes, medical negligence, corruption cases, and cases with abnormal delay.

Section 173(3) BNSS statutorily expands and codifies this judicial exception into general criminal procedure with two distinct modifications:

1. Timeline Expanded to 14 Days: The judicial 7-day preliminary inquiry window has been extended to a statutory maximum of 14 days.
2. Supervisory DSP Sanction: Police cannot initiate a preliminary inquiry at the whims of a Constable or Sub-Inspector; the prior written concurrence of a DSP or Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) is a condition precedent.

6. Victim Safeguards & Free Electronic Copy Supply under Section 173(2)

Under Section 154(2) CrPC, a copy of the FIR was required to be given "forthwith, free of cost, to the informant". In practice, victims were frequently forced to make multiple visits to the police station or pay bribes to obtain a certified physical copy.

Section 173(2) BNSS updates this safeguard for the digital age by mandating that a copy of the information recorded shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant or the victim, either physically or electronically via SMS, email, or citizen portal download within hours of registration. Furthermore, Section 193(3)(ii) BNSS guarantees that victims must receive updates regarding the progress of investigation within 90 days.

7. Comprehensive Comparative Matrix: Section 154 CrPC vs Section 173 BNSS

8. Step-by-Step Remedies When Police Refuse to Register an FIR

If an officer in charge of a police station refuses to record information regarding a cognizable offense under Section 173(1) BNSS, the law provides a three-tiered escalation hierarchy:

9. Strategic Defense & Complainant Guidelines for Criminal Litigators

Criminal practitioners in trial courts must adapt to the new strategic dynamics introduced by Section 173 BNSS:

1. Leveraging the 14-Day Preliminary Inquiry for Defense: When representing clients in matrimonial disputes (Section 85 BNS) or commercial breach allegations (Section 318 BNS), immediately file written representations to the DSP citing Section 173(3) BNSS, submitting banking records and communications to seek closure during the preliminary inquiry before an FIR is lodged.
2. Challenging Unsigned E-FIRs: If the police register an FIR based on an electronic message without the complainant signing within 3 days, file a quashing petition under Section 528 BNSS demonstrating fatal statutory non-compliance.
3. Strict Adherence to Section 175(3) BNSS Affidavits: Litigators filing 156(3)-style applications under Section 175(3) BNSS must attach sworn affidavits proving prior approach to the SHO and SP, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of UP (2015) and now statutorily entrenched under BNSS.

Advocate Kishan Kumar

Senior Trial, Criminal Defence & Appellate Advocate (Punjab & Haryana High Court & Delhi NCR)

Advocate Kishan Kumar is a seasoned trial and appellate advocate practicing before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Delhi High Court, and District & Sessions Courts across Delhi NCR. Specializing in statutory interpretation of new criminal laws (BNS, BNSS, BSA), criminal defence, bail jurisprudence, and commercial dispute resolution.

View Full Advocate Profile & Contact →