Introduction
In all these years of my legal practice, there were a quite a few occasions when a client came to me, confident and arrogantly tells me that they got the FIR for the offence that the accused committed, registered against him within 10 minutes. I being someone who observes law on a daily basis, obviously have my suspicions intact in such situations. In ideal world scenario this process should take 10 minutes or less, but we don’t live in an ideal world, do we?!
Upon
further questioning it is revealed that all that client managed to do was
record his complaint in the daily diary register of the police and got a
receiving with a DD Number for that particular entry. (not the same thing as
FIR). Not knowing what it was, he was told by the attending police officer that
an FIR has been registered on his complaint and action would be taken against
anyone who is found to be the offender.
Such
misguiding might be done by the officer to avoid the initiation of the process
of investigation into the offence and to avoid all the effort that he/she might
have to put in conducting of the investigation of such offences. There might
also be other corrupt reasons behind them not registering an FIR.
Obviously,
there are times, in serious offences or heinous offences, where FIRs do get
registered instantly by the police without any hesitation or delays, but in
real life and ordinary situations, such instances are very few and inconsistent,
hence I am purposefully choosing to ignore them.
In this
article I will be discussing the Section 173 BNSS, which deals with FIR and
answers questions like its role, FIR how made, procedure to be followed etc.
For this we shall be dissecting the provision line by line and then look at
what meaning can we derive out of it. Let’s start
Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) dissection of the provision line by line:
Section 173: Information in Cognizable Cases
Sub-section
(1)
1.
Every information
relating to the commission of a cognizable offence: This means any information about a crime that the police can
investigate without a court order or its express permission.
2.
Irrespective of the
area where the offence is committed: The
location of the crime does not matter. This has been specifically emphasized in
BNSS over its equivalent section in CrPC. It forms the basis of zero FIRs.
3.
May be given orally
or by electronic communication to an officer in charge of a police station: The information can be provided verbally or electronically. This
automatically includes written complaints given by the complainant.
4.
If given orally, it
shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction: The officer must write down the information given to him orally by
the complainant or the informant.
5.
And be read over to
the informant: The written information must be read
back to the person who provided it.
6.
Every such
information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall
be signed by the person giving it: The
informant must sign the information. This is done with the intent of having
some liability attached to the information’s genuineness.
7.
If given by
electronic communication, it shall be taken on record by him on being signed
within three days by the person giving it: The
electronic information must be signed within three days and recorded.
8.
And the substance
thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as
the State Government may by rules prescribe in this behalf: The information must be recorded in a book as prescribed by state
rules, or as of now in Delhi, entered into the computer record system available
at the police station.
Sub-section
(2)
1.
A copy of the
information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of
cost, to the informant or the victim: The
informant or victim must receive a free copy of the recorded information
immediately.
Sub-section
(3)
1.
Without prejudice
to the provisions contained in section 175, on receipt of information relating
to the commission of any cognizable offence, which is punishable for three
years or more but less than seven years: This
section applies to serious crimes punishable by three to seven years.
2.
The officer in
charge of the police station may with the prior permission from an officer not
below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, considering the nature and
gravity of the offence: The officer can
proceed with preliminary investigation with permission from a senior officer.
3.
Proceed to conduct
preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for
proceeding in the matter within a period of fourteen days: The officer can conduct a preliminary investigation within 14 days
to determine if there is enough evidence to proceed.
4.
Or proceed with
investigation when there exists a prima facie case: If there is enough evidence, the investigation can continue.
Section 173 of BNSS ensures that information about cognizable offenses can be reported and recorded efficiently, regardless of the crime's location. It also provides for immediate copies to informants or victims and allows for preliminary investigations for serious offenses.
Understanding Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)
Section 173
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, deals with the
procedure for handling information related to cognizable offences. This section
outlines the steps that must be taken when information about a cognizable
offence is received by a police officer. Let's break down the key aspects of
this section:
Key Aspects of Section 173 BNSS
·
Mode of Giving
Information: Information about a cognizable offence
can be given orally or through electronic communication. If given orally, it
must be reduced to writing and read over to the informant. If given
electronically, it must be signed within three days and entered into a record
book.
·
Recording
Information: If the information is given by a woman
against whom an offence is alleged, it must be recorded by a woman police
officer or any woman officer. If the person against whom the offence is alleged
is mentally or physically disabled, the information must be recorded at their
residence or a convenient place, in the presence of an interpreter or special
educator, and videographed.
· Copy of
Information: A copy of the recorded information must
be provided free of cost to the informant or the victim immediately.
· Preliminary Enquiry: For cognizable offences punishable with imprisonment for three years or more but less than seven years, the officer in charge of the police station may conduct a preliminary enquiry with prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. This enquiry must be completed within 14 days to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case for proceeding.
Landmark Judgements
Lalita
Kumari vs. State of U.P. (2014): The
Supreme Court held that the registration of an FIR is mandatory if the
information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence
The Court
emphasized that no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such cases. If the
information does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity
for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to ascertain whether a
cognizable offence is disclosed
The Supreme
Court's landmark judgment in Lalita Kumari v. State of UP (2014)
clarified the mandatory nature of FIR registration. The Court held that
registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154 of the CrPC
is mandatory if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable
offence, and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such cases.
However, in
certain specific categories of cases (e.g., matrimonial/family disputes,
commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption cases, or cases with
abnormal delay in reporting), a preliminary inquiry may be conducted, but only
to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed. This inquiry must be
time-bound, ideally not exceeding seven days. The ruling emphasized that police
officers cannot avoid registering an FIR if a cognizable offence is revealed,
and action must be taken against erring officers.
Arnesh
Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014): The
Supreme Court ruled that police officers cannot avoid their duty of registering
an offence if a cognizable offence is disclosed. The Court also directed that
action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if the
information received discloses a cognizable offence. The Arnesh Kumar vs. State
of Bihar (2014) judgment by the Supreme Court of India addressed the rampant
issue of arbitrary arrests, particularly in cases related to Section 498A IPC
(dowry harassment). The Court observed that police often made arrests
mechanically without proper justification, leading to humiliation and
curtailment of liberty.
To curb
this misuse, the Court issued a set of mandatory guidelines for police officers
and magistrates. It stipulated that arrests in cases punishable with
imprisonment up to seven years should not be routine. Police must record
reasons in writing for the necessity of arrest, adhering to Section 41 CrPC,
and magistrates must scrutinize these reasons before authorizing detention.
Failure to comply can lead to departmental action against officers and
magistrates. This landmark ruling aimed to balance the protection of individual
liberty with the need for effective law enforcement.
Imtiyaz Ali
vs. State of U.P. (2024): The Allahabad High
Court reiterated the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the Lalita
Kumari case, emphasizing that the scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify
the veracity of the information but only to ascertain whether it reveals any cognizable
offence.
The 2024 judgment in Imtiyaz Ali vs. State of U.P.
primarily reiterates and reinforces existing guidelines regarding arrest and
bail, particularly those laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
(2014) and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022).
The Court emphasized the crucial role of
Sections 41 and 41-A of the CrPC in preventing unnecessary arrests for offenses
punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. It directed investigating
agencies to strictly comply with these provisions and the earlier guidelines,
warning of appropriate action against dereliction of duty. Courts, too, are
mandated to ensure compliance, with non-compliance potentially entitling the
accused to bail.
The judgment also called for the consideration of a separate Bail Act to streamline bail procedures and directed State Governments and Union Territories to issue Standing Orders for procedures under Sections 41 and 41-A. It further stressed the need for expeditious filling of vacancies in special courts and measures to assist undertrial prisoners unable to meet bail conditions.
In essence, the Imtiyaz Ali judgment reinforces the principles of judicial oversight and the protection of individual liberty against arbitrary arrests, building upon previous landmark rulings.
Conclusion:
Section 173
of the BNSS provides a detailed procedure for handling information related to
cognizable offences, ensuring that the rights of the informant and the victim
are protected. Landmark judgements have further clarified the scope and
application of this section, emphasizing the importance of timely registration
of FIRs and the limited circumstances under which preliminary inquiries may be
conducted. I hope after this it would be a lot more difficult for any person to
confuse or fool you between a simple DD entry and a FIR registered by police.
____________________________________________________________
Sources/ References:
Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P. (2014)
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014)
Imtiyaz Ali vs. State of U.P. (2024)
___________________________________________________________________
Related Blogs:
FIR Registration Made Simple: A Comprehensive FAQ Guide
1.
All You Need to Know About Zero FIR: A Crucial Tool for Victims of Crime (PART-1)
1.
All You Need to Know About Zero FIR: A Crucial Tool for Victims of Crime (PART-2)
1.
BNSS Medical Examination: Ensuring Justice for Accused and Victims
1.
Old Meets New: A Comprehensive Guide to Investigation Procedures Under Section 176 BNSS
1.
Complaint Cases under Section 223 BNSS/ 200CrPC: An In-Depth Analysis
___________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer:
This Article/essay provides general information and does not constitute legal
advice. Consult a qualified legal professional for specific cases.
Tip: If
you find this Article to be of any relevance, please feel free to give your
feedback to the author via commenting below. Consider following my blog. For
any query or suggestions, you can email the author at support@legalprobe.in
___________________________________________________________________
0 Comments