A Complete 2026 Guide to Section 173 BNSS, Territorial Jurisdiction, Zero FIR Transfer, Police Refusal and Your Legal Remedies
NEW DELHI: Yes. A Zero FIR can be registered at any police station in India if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, even when the incident occurred outside that police station’s territorial jurisdiction.
This position is now expressly recognised under Section 173(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The provision allows information relating to a cognizable offence to be given to the officer in charge of a police station “irrespective of the area where the offence is committed.”
In simple words, the police cannot refuse to record a cognizable offence merely by saying, “This incident did not happen in our jurisdiction.”
This is the legal basis of what is commonly known as a Zero FIR.
However, one distinction is crucial. Zero FIR is meant for cognizable offences. A purely non-cognizable complaint does not become an FIR merely because it is filed at a police station outside the place of occurrence.
Further, Section 173(3) BNSS permits a preliminary enquiry in certain categories of cognizable offences before registration of the FIR, subject to the conditions prescribed under the law.
Therefore, the correct legal position is simple: territorial jurisdiction cannot, by itself, block registration of a cognizable offence, but not every complaint automatically qualifies for a Zero FIR.
WHAT IS A ZERO FIR?
A Zero FIR is an FIR registered when information discloses a cognizable offence but the police station receiving it does not ordinarily have territorial jurisdiction over the place where the offence occurred.
Instead of telling the complainant:
“Go to the police station where the incident happened,”
the receiving police station can record the case first and then transfer it to the police station having territorial jurisdiction.
The Delhi High Court explained the concept clearly in Neelu Shrivastava v. State & Ors., W.P.(CRL) 481/2020. The Court said that when a cognizable offence is disclosed but the crime occurred outside that police station’s jurisdiction, a Zero FIR is registered and then transferred to the concerned police station.
The purpose is simple: jurisdiction should not become an excuse for losing time, evidence or access to the criminal justice system.
CAN A ZERO FIR REALLY BE FILED AT ANY POLICE STATION?
Yes, subject to one crucial requirement: the information must disclose a cognizable offence.
Section 173(1) BNSS now expressly begins with:
“Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where the offence is committed…”
That wording matters.
If an offence occurs in Mumbai and the informant is presently in Delhi, territorial jurisdiction alone cannot be used to refuse to receive information concerning a cognizable offence.
The same principle applies across State boundaries because the BNSS is a central criminal-procedure statute applicable throughout India, subject to its statutory framework.
And Zero FIR is not a women-only remedy. Section 173(1) is not restricted by the gender of the informant. A man, woman or another person giving information about a cognizable offence can invoke the provision. Special procedural safeguards separately apply to women reporting certain specified offences.
That distinction is important. Criminal procedure should work on the nature of the offence, not on social-media assumptions about who is entitled to use it.
WHAT SECTION 173 BNSS ACTUALLY CHANGED
Before the BNSS, Zero FIR was recognised through judicial decisions, administrative directions and police practice.
Today, Section 173(1) BNSS sets out the territorial point directly.
Information may be given orally or through electronic communication. Oral information must be reduced to writing, read over, and signed by the informant. If information is provided electronically, Section 173 requires it to be signed within three days for it to be taken on record. The MHA confirmed this position in its August 2026 parliamentary response on e-FIRs.
This means one popular statement needs correction.
It is misleading to say simply that “Zero FIR was created by the 2013 Criminal Law Amendment.”
The stronger legal chronology is this: Supreme Court jurisprudence had already rejected territorial jurisdiction as a ground for refusing cognizable information; the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a specific advisory in 2013 on registration irrespective of territorial jurisdiction; and the BNSS now expressly places the territorial principle in Section 173(1).
SUPREME COURT: TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION CANNOT BECOME A REASON TO REFUSE AN FIR.
In State of A.P. v. Punati Ramulu, AIR 1993 SC 2644; 1994 Supp (1) SCC 590, a police constable refused to record information regarding a cognizable offence on the ground that the incident had occurred outside the territorial jurisdiction of that police station.
The Supreme Court strongly disapproved of this conduct and described it as “certainly a dereliction of duty.”
The Court made it clear that lack of territorial jurisdiction does not justify refusing to record information about a cognizable offence. The information can be recorded first and then forwarded to the police station having jurisdiction.
In practical terms, the familiar excuse, “This matter does not fall within our jurisdiction,” cannot by itself justify turning away a complainant in a cognizable case. Territorial jurisdiction may determine which police station ultimately investigates the offence, but it should not become a barrier at the stage of recording the information.
The Supreme Court reinforced this principle in Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (1999) 8 SCC 728.
The Court held that where information discloses a cognizable offence, the police cannot avoid registration or investigation merely because of a dispute over territorial jurisdiction.
If the investigation later shows that the offence was committed outside that police station’s territorial jurisdiction, the case can be forwarded to the police station with proper jurisdiction.
The legal position is therefore straightforward: jurisdiction can be sorted out after the criminal process is set in motion. It should not be used as the first excuse to shut the door on a cognizable complaint.
The Supreme Court later applied the same territorial-jurisdiction principles in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma, decided on 28 August 2020, further reinforcing that questions of territorial jurisdiction do not automatically invalidate the initial registration or investigation of a cognizable offence.
2026 JHARKHAND HIGH COURT: ZERO FIR IS “OBLIGATORY”
The most useful recent authority is Court on its Own Motion v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., W.P.(PIL) No. 2253 of 2024, 2026:JHHC:16350-DB. The Division Bench specifically examined the failure to register Zero FIRs on territorial grounds. After referring to Supreme Court precedent, the BNSS and applicable SOPs, the High Court held:
“lodging of Zero FIR is obligatory upon the police authorities irrespective of territorial jurisdiction”
The Court also accepted the Amicus Curiae’s submission that non-compliance required serious accountability and said it found “substance” in the suggestion for penal as well as departmental action against erring officers.
This is significant because it is not a 2013 circular being recycled in 2026. It is a 2026 High Court judgment applying the present BNSS framework.
ZERO FIR DOES NOT APPLY TO EVERY COMPLAINT
This is where legal accuracy matters.
A person cannot force registration of a Zero FIR merely by using the words “Zero FIR.”
The information must disclose a cognizable offence.
For a purely non-cognizable offence, Section 174 BNSS applies. The police must make the prescribed entry, refer the informant to the Magistrate and ordinarily cannot investigate the non-cognizable case without a Magistrate’s order. If a case contains multiple offences and at least one is cognizable, Section 174(4) treats the case as cognizable.
Therefore:
- Wrong jurisdiction + cognizable offence = Zero FIR can apply.
- Only non-cognizable offence = Zero FIR is not automatically the correct procedure.
That one distinction prevents a large amount of bad legal advice.
CAN POLICE HOLD A PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY BEFORE REGISTERING FIR?
Sometimes, yes.This is another major change under the BNSS which makes many older articles incomplete.
Under Section 173(3) BNSS, where information concerns a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more but less than seven years, the officer in charge may, considering the nature and gravity of the offence and with prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, conduct a preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists.
That enquiry must be completed within 14 days.
The Supreme Court examined this provision in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 410, Criminal Appeal No. 1545 of 2025, decided by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
The Court expressly held that Section 173(3) is an exception to Section 173(1). Where Section 173(3) applies, a preliminary enquiry can examine whether a prima facie case exists even though the information alleges a cognizable offence. If a prima facie case emerges, the police should register an FIR immediately and proceed with the investigation.
This distinction is especially important for the accused.
Registration should not be blocked by territorial games. But criminal law should not become mechanical merely because an accusation has been typed on paper either.
Access to justice and protection against frivolous prosecution are not competing ideas. A fair criminal process needs both.
HOW DOES A ZERO FIR WORK IN PRACTICE?
The practical sequence is straightforward:
- Approach a police station and clearly disclose the facts constituting the cognizable offence. If the police station lacks territorial jurisdiction, specifically ask for registration as a Zero FIR rather than being redirected without registration.
- Give a clear written complaint wherever possible. Mention dates, places, persons involved, relevant communications, witnesses and immediately preservable evidence. Do not exaggerate facts merely to attract a stronger penal section.
- Obtain the free copy of the FIR to which the informant or victim is entitled under Section 173(2) BNSS.
- The Zero FIR is then transferred to the police station having territorial jurisdiction. That police station then conducts the investigation in accordance with law.
- Preserve the acknowledgement, complaint, FIR copy, emails and documents showing when and where the information was first supplied.
An official police SOP hosted by BPR&D likewise describes Zero FIR as applicable to cognizable offences and records the basic principle that the FIR is registered despite absence of territorial jurisdiction.
Exact administrative numbering and internal transfer practices can vary between police systems. The statutory right against refusal merely on territorial grounds does not.
WHAT IF THE POLICE REFUSE TO REGISTER A ZERO FIR?
Do not convert the police station into a shouting match. Convert the refusal into a documented legal record.
Under Section 173(4) BNSS, where the officer in charge refuses to record the information, the aggrieved person may send the substance of the information in writing and by post to the concerned Superintendent of Police.
If the Superintendent of Police is satisfied that the information discloses a cognizable offence, the SP may investigate personally or direct a subordinate police officer to investigate.
If the statutory remedy still does not produce action, the aggrieved person may approach the Magistrate. Under Section 175(3) BNSS, the Magistrate can order investigation after considering the application supported by an affidavit, conducting such inquiry as considered necessary and considering the police officer’s submissions.
The important practical rule is therefore:
Do not merely say, “Police refused my FIR.” Preserve proof of the complaint and then use the hierarchy created by the BNSS.
Procedure creates the record on which later judicial relief is built.
WHAT ZERO FIR DOES NOT MEAN FOR THE ACCUSED
A Zero FIR is an FIR registration mechanism. It is not a judicial finding that the allegation is true.
This matters enormously in matrimonial, relationship, financial and other criminal disputes where an allegation may later be contested on facts, jurisdiction, documents, electronic evidence or legal ingredients.
The Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Imran Pratapgadhi is a useful reminder that FIR registration itself cannot become mechanical where the statute permits preliminary scrutiny. The Court said Section 173(3) was intended to permit assessment of whether a prima facie case exists in its applicable category, including protection against frivolous invocation of criminal law.
For an accused, the correct response to a Zero FIR is therefore not panic.
Preserve chats, emails, financial records, travel records, call details, photographs and other lawful defence material. Do not delete evidence, manufacture documents, influence witnesses or evade lawful investigation.
And remember one basic distinction:
The informant’s right to report a cognizable offence without being bounced between police stations does not eliminate the accused’s right to due process.
A legal system becomes dangerous when either side is treated as automatically truthful.
ZERO FIR VS REGULAR FIR: WHAT IS THE REAL DIFFERENCE?
The difference is primarily territorial and administrative, not evidentiary magic.
A regular FIR is registered by the police station that has the relevant territorial connection to investigate the offence.
A Zero FIR allows initial registration elsewhere so urgent procedure is not paralysed merely because the informant reached the “wrong” police station.
The Delhi High Court in Neelu Shrivastava made an equally important reverse point: if the receiving police station actually has territorial jurisdiction over an alleged incident, it should register a regular FIR instead of unnecessarily treating the case as Zero FIR and transferring responsibility elsewhere.
That is the real object of the law. Zero FIR exists to solve a jurisdiction problem. It should not be used to create one.
CONCLUSION
In 2026, the legal position on Zero FIR is clear.
Where information discloses a cognizable offence, Section 173(1) BNSS allows it to be given to a police station irrespective of where the offence occurred. Territorial jurisdiction alone is not a valid reason to refuse registration.
The Supreme Court had recognised this principle decades ago, and the Jharkhand High Court reaffirmed it under the present BNSS framework in 2026.
At the same time, the rule must be understood correctly. Zero FIR does not apply to every complaint. A purely non-cognizable grievance does not automatically become an FIR, Section 173(3) BNSS permits preliminary enquiry in specified cases, and registration of an FIR does not establish guilt.
The balance is simple: A genuine complainant should not be denied access to criminal law merely because they approached the wrong police station. At the same time, an accused should not be treated as guilty merely because an FIR has been registered.
That is the essence of fair criminal procedure.
FAQs
- Can I file a zero FIR at any police station in India?
Yes. For a cognizable offence, Section 173(1) BNSS allows information to be given irrespective of where the offence occurred. - Can police refuse to register an FIR because the crime happened in another state?
No, not merely on territorial-jurisdiction grounds. The FIR can be registered and then transferred to the police station having jurisdiction. - Can a man file a zero FIR in India?
Yes. Zero FIR is gender-neutral. A man can file it if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence. - Can a zero FIR be filed online or by email?
Yes. Section 173 BNSS permits information through electronic communication, subject to the statutory requirement of signing it within three days. - What can I do if the police refuse to register a zero FIR?
Send the complaint to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS. If required, you can then approach the competent Magistrate under the BNSS procedure.
