Unit I — Introduction, FIR, Investigation & Arrest

“The First Information Report is not a piece of substantive evidence — it is the foundation stone on which the entire structure of the prosecution is built.” — on the role of the FIR

The Machinery & Classification of Offences

Criminal procedure sets the machinery through which the substantive criminal law (the BNS) is enforced. The hierarchy of criminal courts under the BNSS runs from the Supreme Court and High Courts down through the Court of Session (Sessions Judge, Additional and Assistant Sessions Judges), the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Judicial Magistrates of the First and Second Class, with Executive Magistrates handling preventive and administrative functions.

Every offence is classified along three axes, and the classification controls the entire procedure that follows:

FIR, Zero FIR & the Lalita Kumari Mandate

The First Information Report (S.173) is the first information that discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, recorded in writing and signed by the informant; it sets the criminal-law machinery in motion. A cryptic or vague telephonic message that merely prompts the police to reach the scene is not an FIR — the first detailed information disclosing a cognizable offence is.

flowchart TD
    A["Information of a COGNIZABLE offence (S.173)"]:::root
    A --> B["Registration is MANDATORY<br/>(Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P.)"]:::yes
    B --> C["Wrong jurisdiction? -> register a<br/>ZERO FIR, transfer to proper station"]:::yes
    A --> D["Officer refuses to register?"]:::q
    D --> E["Complain to the SP (S.173(4))"]:::leaf
    D --> F["Move the Magistrate (S.175)<br/>who may direct registration"]:::leaf

    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#333,color:#000;
    classDef yes fill:#E6FFE6,stroke:#1E7A1E,color:#000;
    classDef q fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#EFEFEF,stroke:#555,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. (2014) made registration of an FIR mandatory where the information discloses a cognizable offence — the officer has no discretion to refuse, though a preliminary inquiry is permitted in a narrow set of categories (matrimonial, commercial, medical-negligence, corruption and abnormally delayed cases). A Zero FIR must be registered at any police station irrespective of territorial jurisdiction and then transferred to the station having jurisdiction. The BNSS also introduces electronic FIR (e-FIR) and time-bound forwarding.

Investigation & Arrest

Investigation (conducted by the police) comprises: proceeding to the spot, ascertaining facts, recording statements (S.180), search and seizure, and forming an opinion, ending in a final report / charge-sheet (S.193). The arrest provisions (Ss.35–62) balance the power to arrest against personal liberty:

• S.35 — when police may arrest without warrant; the BNSS requires that for offences punishable with less than 7 years, arrest is not automatic and the Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) checklist (S.35(3)) must be followed.
• D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) — the constitutional arrest-memo, intimation-to-relative, medical-examination safeguards, now substantially codified.
• S.47 — the arrested person’s right to be informed of the grounds of arrest and of the right to bail in bailable offences; S.58 — production before a Magistrate within 24 hours.

✏️ Solved Problem 1 (IRAC Method)

Problem: A goes to a police station to report a cognizable offence; the officer refuses to register the FIR, saying the offence occurred outside the station’s jurisdiction. Can he refuse?

I — Issue

Whether a police officer may refuse to register an FIR disclosing a cognizable offence on the ground that it occurred outside his territorial jurisdiction.

R — Rule

Section 173 + Zero FIR — registration of a cognizable offence is mandatory (Lalita Kumari); a Zero FIR must be registered at any station irrespective of jurisdiction and forwarded to the proper one. Refusal may be carried to the Superintendent of Police under S.173(4).

A — Analysis

The decoy is the “wrong jurisdiction” excuse — it sounds administratively sensible to send the complainant to the “correct” station. But jurisdiction is no ground to refuse registration: the officer’s duty, once a cognizable offence is disclosed, is ministerial, not discretionary. He must register a Zero FIR and transfer it to the station having jurisdiction; making a victim chase the right police station defeats the very purpose of mandatory registration. His refusal is therefore illegal, and A has layered remedies — the SP under S.173(4), and the Magistrate under S.175.

C — Conclusion

The officer cannot refuse. He must register a Zero FIR and forward it; if registration is still denied, A may complain to the SP under S.173(4) or move the Magistrate, and persistent refusal can attract disciplinary and penal consequences.

✏️ Solved Problem 2 (IRAC Method)

Problem: A police officer receives a cryptic telephonic report of a dacoity, rushes to the spot, and there records the informant’s detailed statement. Which of the two is the FIR?

I — Issue

Whether a vague telephonic intimation, or the detailed statement later recorded at the scene, constitutes the First Information Report.

R — Rule

Section 173 — the FIR is the first information that discloses the commission of a cognizable offence with sufficient particulars; a cryptic, vague telephonic message that merely prompts the officer to go to the spot is not an FIR.

A — Analysis

The tempting answer is that the earliest communication — the phone call — must be the “first” information. But the law looks to substance, not sequence: a message that does no more than send the police to the scene, without disclosing the particulars of a cognizable offence, is a mere intimation, not an FIR. The detailed statement recorded at the spot is the first information that actually discloses the offence with particulars, so it is the FIR. Treating the cryptic call as the FIR would unfairly tie the prosecution to an incomplete first message.

C — Conclusion

The detailed statement recorded at the spot is the FIR; the earlier cryptic phone message is only the intimation that prompted the officer to act. The investigation and trial proceed on the basis of that detailed statement.

📄 The full bundle (₹199) has the complete Unit I — the courts and functionaries, classification of offences, FIR/Zero FIR/e-FIR, the Lalita Kumari preliminary-inquiry categories, the full law of investigation, and arrest with the Arnesh Kumar and D.K. Basu safeguards — plus the Question Bank’s model answers to 8 solved problems (FIR vs station diary, refusal to register, place of trial, powers of an Assistant Sessions Judge). Get Notes + Question Bank — ₹199