[S.173 BNSS] High Court Slams Delhi & UP Cops For "Passing The Buck", Says Police Can't Refuse To Register FIR Based On Jurisdiction

The boy was found dead back in December 2024, and his sister alleged that to date, no FIR has been lodged in the matter.

The Delhi Police claimed they had received a 'missing person' report for which no FIR is to be registered as it does not disclose the commission of an offence. The body was only later found in Greater Noida, which is outside their territorial jurisdiction.

On the other hand, UP Police submitted that unless the inquest proceedings are concluded and a final inquest report is rendered, they cannot assume that the death is 'homicidal' and accordingly, there is no reason to register an FIR.

Taking strong exception to both the agencies' “passing-the-buck”, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani reminded both of them of the Supreme Court Constitution Bench decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2014), which in unambiguous terms has mandated the registration of an FIR.

Secion 173 of BNSS violated

At the outset, the Court referred to Section 173 of the BNSS which replaced Section 154 CrPC on registration of FIR and observed that the Legislature has added the words “… irrespective of the - area where the offence is committed…”

It held that the intent of the Legislature is therefore that information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally must be reduced into writing by an officer in-charge of a police station, regardless of where the offence may be stated to have been committed.

“The obvious purpose of adding the aforesaid phrase to section 173 BNSS is that the Legislature wanted to address the mischief of police stations refusing to record information relating to commission of a cognizable offence, on the excuse that the offence complained-of has not been committed within their territorial jurisdiction. This excuse is therefore no longer available to any police station under the new provision of section 173 of the BNSS.”

Lack of clarity on behalf of Delhi Police cannot explain non-registration of FIR

Then, to answer the qualms expressed by the Delhi Police as to which cognizable offence was disclosed on the basis of the missing person information given to them, the Court observed,

“At the stage when information is received from a complainant it would be rare to be able to pinpoint with certainty as to which precise cognizable offence is disclosed; and there would always be an element of subjectivity on the part of a police officer to decide as to which cognizable offence is disclosed in a given set of circumstances. This lack of clarity cannot however be justification for not registering an FIR at all.”

The bench added, “It can never be countenanced, that based on what a complainant or an aggrieved person discloses to a police officer, the police officer may refuse to register an FIR saying that until he is sure which exact cognizable offence is disclosed, he would not register an FIR at all. Such a position would lead to an anomalous situation, whereby investigation into a cognizable offence would not commence until an FIR is registered; and an FIR would not be registered until the police officer is clear as to which cognizable offence is disclosed.”

In the case at hand, the Court held there was sufficient information and material before the Delhi Police to have registered an FIR for the offence under section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 i.e., for murder, regardless of the fact that the dead body was recovered outside their territorial jurisdiction.

“Furthermore, since the predominant body of evidence was discovered in Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, i.e., outside of their territorial jurisdiction, the Delhi Police would have been justified to designate the FIR as a 'Zero FIR' and to have transferred the investigation to the U.P. Police,” the Court held.

UP Police failed to discern cognizable offence

So far as the UP Police is concerned, the Court was irked at how the agency failed to discern any cognizable offence in the circumstances the dead body was found— inside a locked car, with a carbon monoxide cylinder and syringes, and an ominous note in his diary.

It held that a police officer who receives information from a complainant quite definitely needs to exercise some discernment, and tempered with his experience, he is required to assess whether the information relates to the commission of a cognizable offence.

“However, this assessment is to be made at a rudimentary level, and the threshold of examining the information, as to whether it discloses commission of a cognizable offence, is very minimal. If the answer to such assessment is in the affirmative, an FIR must be registered posthaste.”

At this stage, the Court added an important caveat that an FIR is not an encyclopaedia of all information relating to a case and offences and provisions of the penal law can both be added and deleted during the course of investigation.

So far as the agency's arguments on inquest proceedings under Section 194 BNSS are concerned, the Court said, “inquest under section 194 BNSS and investigation pursuant to an FIR under section 173 BNSS are two independent processes, and one need not await conclusion of the other.”

As such, the Delhi Police has been directed to forthwith register a 'Zero FIR' and to transfer all material to the UP Police within a week. The latter has been directed to re-register an FIR and to proceed to investigate the matter without any further delay.

Appearance: Mr. Jayant K. Sud, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashish Upadhyay, Mr. Kartik Jasra, Mr. Shivam Jasra, Mr. Prannit Stefano, Ms. Shayal Anand, Mr. Sai Manik Sud Mr. Sahib Kocchar and Ms. Vidhi Jasra, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Rohan Jaitley (CGSC), Mr. Dev Pratap Shahi, Mr. Varun Pratap Singh and Mr. Yogya Bhatia, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC (Crl.) for State with Mr. Mathew M. Philip, Mr. Sangeet Sibou and Mr. Aniket Kumar Singh, Advocates. Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Siddharth Yadav and Mr. Sumit Chaudhary, Advocates for R-3. Mr. Anil Mittal, Mr. Shaurya Mittal, Advocates with Mr. Vipin Kumar (SHO) with Mr. Sunny Tomer (SI, P.S.: Knowledge Park, Noida U.P. for R4 to R6.

Case title: Khushi Sharma v. Union Of India And Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 567

Case no.: W.P.(CRL) 259/2025

Click here to read judgment