By Harsh Singh Dahiya, Advocate, Supreme Court of India | Partner, Sterling & Partners

India’s criminal justice framework underwent its most significant structural transformation in over 150 years when the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) came into force on 1 July 2024, replacing the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The transition is not merely a renumbering of familiar provisions — it introduces substantive changes to how criminal complaints are registered, investigated, and prosecuted.

For ordinary citizens, lawyers, and businesses that encounter the criminal process — whether as complainants, accused, or witnesses — understanding how the new law operates is now a practical necessity. This article walks through the foundational concepts: what an FIR is and how it is registered under the BNSS, the difference between cognisable and non-cognisable offences, what happens during investigation, how a chargesheet differs from a closure report, and what rights a person has at each stage — including access to bail.

What Is an FIR, and How Is It Registered Under the BNSS?

A First Information Report (FIR) is the foundational document of criminal proceedings in India. It is not formally defined in the BNSS — a curious legislative omission — but its legal significance is established both through the statute and decades of judicial interpretation. Section 173(1) of the BNSS is the provision that governs registration of information about cognisable offences.

Under Section 173(1), any person may give information about the commission of a cognisable offence to the officer in charge of a police station, orally or through electronic means, regardless of where the offence occurred. When information is given orally, the police officer must reduce it to writing, read it back to the informant, and obtain the informant’s signature. When given electronically, the informant’s signature must be obtained within three days. A free copy of the registered FIR must be given to the informant or victim promptly.

Critically, the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, mandated that registration of an FIR is compulsory upon receipt of information disclosing a cognisable offence. The police have no discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registration in such cases. However, the BNSS introduces a limited exception through Section 173(3): for offences punishable with imprisonment between three and seven years, the officer in charge may, with prior permission of a Deputy Superintendent of Police, conduct a preliminary inquiry of up to fourteen days to establish whether a prima facie case exists. This provision is the subject of ongoing legal debate, with challenges pending before the Supreme Court in Azad Singh Kataria and related matters, where the Court has questioned whether the new provision is consistent with the Lalita Kumari mandate.

Zero FIR — Reporting a Crime Regardless of Jurisdiction

One of the most practically important provisions in the BNSS is the statutory codification of the Zero FIR under Section 173(1). A Zero FIR allows a victim or complainant to report a cognisable offence at any police station, irrespective of whether the offence occurred within that station’s territorial jurisdiction. The station where the Zero FIR is registered assigns it a temporary number and transfers it to the jurisdictionally competent station, which re-registers it as a regular FIR.

The concept gained momentum after the 2012 Nirbhaya case and was recommended by the Justice Verma Committee. Courts across India — including the Delhi High Court in Neelu Shrivastava v. State (2021) — directed police stations to register Zero FIRs regardless of jurisdiction. Under the BNSS, this is now a statutory right rather than merely a judicially-created protection.

Cognisable vs. Non-Cognisable Offences — Why the Distinction Matters

Not every crime carries the same procedural consequences. The BNSS divides offences into cognisable and non-cognisable categories, and this classification determines the extent of police powers and the protections available to accused persons.

A cognisable offence is one in which the police can arrest without a warrant, investigate without a Magistrate’s prior permission, and register an FIR upon receiving information. Serious crimes — murder, robbery, kidnapping, rape, dacoity — are cognisable offences. They now appear in the First Schedule, Part A of the BNSS. An FIR can and must be registered for these offences, and police can take immediate action.

A non-cognisable offence, by contrast, is one where the police cannot arrest without a warrant and cannot investigate without prior permission from a Magistrate. These offences, listed in the First Schedule, Part B of the BNSS, typically include less serious matters such as assault without grievous hurt, certain forms of defamation, and cheating below a threshold. If a person reports a non-cognisable offence at a police station, the officer does not register an FIR — instead, they record the information in the Daily Diary and direct the complainant to approach a Magistrate if they wish to proceed.

The practical consequence is significant: if you are accused in an FIR relating to a cognisable offence, the police have immediate arrest powers. If the offence is non-cognisable, you have substantially greater procedural protection in the initial stages.

What Happens If the Police Refuse to Register an FIR?

Police refusal to register an FIR — commonly referred to as “burking” — remains a widespread problem in India despite the judicial mandate in Lalita Kumari. The BNSS provides remedies at multiple levels. Under Section 173(4), if the officer in charge refuses to register information relating to a cognisable offence, the aggrieved person may send the information in writing by post or electronic communication to the Superintendent of Police. If the Superintendent is satisfied that the information discloses a cognisable offence, they must investigate personally or direct a subordinate to do so.

If this administrative remedy fails, a complainant may approach the Magistrate under Section 175 of the BNSS with an application for direction to register an FIR and investigate. The Magistrate has the power under Section 175(3) to direct an investigation.

The Investigation Process and the Role of the Chargesheet

Once an FIR is registered for a cognisable offence, the police are duty-bound to investigate. Investigation under the BNSS includes gathering evidence, recording statements of witnesses (under Section 180), recording statements before a Magistrate (under Section 183, previously Section 164 CrPC), arresting suspects, conducting searches and seizures, and preparing the material that will form the basis of a prosecution.

Chargesheet Under Section 193 of the BNSS

The chargesheet — formally referred to as a “police report” — is the document by which a police officer, upon completing investigation, formally brings a case before the Magistrate for trial. It is governed by Section 193 of the BNSS, which corresponds to Section 173(2) of the CrPC.

A chargesheet must include: the names of the parties; the nature of the information; the names of witnesses; whether an offence appears to have been committed and by whom; whether the accused has been arrested or released on bail; and — a notable addition under the BNSS — the sequence of custody in the case of any electronic devices seized during investigation. This last requirement reflects the growing significance of digital evidence and the need for a documented chain of custody to prevent tampering arguments at trial.

Section 193(2) of the BNSS imposes an important time limit: where investigation relates to offences under Sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, or 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (sexual offences) or under the POCSO Act, investigation must be completed within two months. While no universal deadline applies to all offences, the BNSS makes clear that investigation must be completed without unnecessary delay.

The Supreme Court in Dablu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand (2024) directed that police officers must strictly comply with the requirements of the chargesheet as prescribed by the statute, and that courts must scrutinise non-compliant reports rather than rubber-stamping them. In Mariam Fasihuddin v. State by Adugodi Police Station (2024), the Court held that a Magistrate cannot take cognisance of a supplementary chargesheet unless it contains genuinely fresh evidence obtained through further investigation.

Once a chargesheet is filed, the Magistrate reviews it to determine whether to take cognisance of the offence. If satisfied, the Magistrate may issue a summons or warrant against the accused under Section 227 of the BNSS.

Closure Reports — And the Right to Protest Them

Not every police investigation results in a chargesheet. Where the investigating officer concludes that there is insufficient evidence or no reasonable ground to forward the accused to the Magistrate, they may file a closure report (also called a final report) under Section 189 of the BNSS.

A closure report does not automatically end the matter. When the Magistrate receives a closure report, they have three options: accept the report and close the case; order further investigation if they find gaps in the material; or take direct cognisance of the offence under Section 210 of the BNSS if the available material otherwise warrants proceeding.

Critically, the complainant — the person who originally filed the FIR — has the right to be heard before the Magistrate accepts a closure report. This right, established through long-standing judicial interpretation and the provisions of the BNSS, means that if you are a victim and the police close your case without pursuing charges, you can appear before the Magistrate, file a protest petition, and place your own material before the court. If the Magistrate is persuaded that there is sufficient cause to proceed, the case can be revived.

Bail During Investigation and Anticipatory Bail Under the BNSS

Arrest is not inevitable upon registration of an FIR. Two forms of bail protection are particularly important during the investigation stage.

Regular bail during investigation is governed by Section 480 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 437 of the CrPC). Where a person has been arrested for a bailable offence, bail is a matter of right. For non-bailable offences, the police officer or Magistrate has discretion to grant bail based on factors including the nature of the offence, the likelihood of the accused fleeing, and whether the accused is a habitual offender.

Under Section 482 of the BNSS, the BNSS restates the law of anticipatory bail — the right to seek bail in anticipation of arrest, before any arrest is made. The Sessions Court or the High Court may, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person may be arrested for a non-bailable offence, direct that upon arrest they shall be released on bail. Anticipatory bail applications are typically argued on grounds that the FIR is false, that the applicant is not likely to tamper with evidence or flee, and that custody is not required for purposes of investigation.

The BNSS makes one notable addition: under Section 482(2), no final order of anticipatory bail is to be passed without notice to the Public Prosecutor, ensuring the state is heard. Courts continue to follow established principles from cases such as Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, which held that anticipatory bail need not be time-limited and can subsist through the trial unless specifically curtailed.

Key Takeaways

  • The BNSS, in force from 1 July 2024, replaces the CrPC. FIRs registered before that date and their subsequent investigation and trial remain governed by the CrPC under the transitional provisions of Section 531 of the BNSS.
  • An FIR is registered under Section 173 of the BNSS for cognisable offences. The mandate of Lalita Kumari for compulsory registration remains in force, subject to the new preliminary inquiry provision under Section 173(3) for 3–7 year offences, which is under constitutional challenge.
  • Zero FIR is now a statutory right under Section 173(1) of the BNSS — you can report a cognisable offence at any police station regardless of jurisdiction.
  • The chargesheet (Section 193 BNSS) is the formal document of prosecution; it must comply with prescribed contents including, as a new requirement, a documented chain of custody for electronic devices.
  • A closure report does not end your case as a victim — you have the right to file a protest petition before the Magistrate.
  • Anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS is available before arrest; it should be sought promptly when there is credible apprehension of arrest for a serious offence.
  • Legal advice should be sought at the earliest possible stage — whether you are a complainant, a person against whom an FIR has been filed, or someone apprehending arrest.

About Sterling & Partners
Sterling & Partners is a full-service law firm with chambers at the Supreme Court of India and offices in Greater Kailash-2, New Delhi. The firm practises before the Supreme Court of India and all major courts and tribunals, with expertise in criminal defence, bail applications before the Supreme Court and High Courts, anticipatory bail, and first information report-related proceedings. For consultation, contact the firm through sterlingpartners.law.