Law and You >Procedural Laws > BNSS > First Information Report FIR (S. 173 BNSS)

Police are the first agency for the administration of criminal justice and are considered to be the first line of defence against crime. The primary responsibility of Police is to protect life, liberty, and property of citizens. It is for the protection of these rights that the Criminal Justice System has been constituted assigning important responsibility to the Police. They have several duties to perform, the most important among them being the maintenance of Law and order and investigation of offences. The Police Act, 1861, does not define the word “Police” but only says that it shall include all persons who shall be enrolled under this Act. The preamble to the Police Act, 1861 termed police as an “instrument for prevention and detection of crime” including inter alia maintenance of order, peace and tranquillity. Ss. 154 to 196 of Chapter XIII titled “Information to Police and Their Power of Investigation” of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) deals with an investigation by the police. In this article, we shall study Section 173 of the BNSS titled “Information in Cognizable Cases’. Report of this information is commonly known as the First Information Report or FIR.

Investigation is one of the important function carried out by the Police. The purpose of investigation is to collect evidence and apprehend the culprit.  The law commission in its 14 the Report (1958) has suggested that investigating staff should be separated from the law and order staff to enable the investigation officer to devote undivided attention to investigation work. The right of investigation by police under Chapter XIII of the BNSS cannot be challenged in any court.

In State of West Bengal v. S N Basak, AIR 1963 SC 447 case, the Supreme Court held that the statutory right of the police to carry on investigation under Chapter XII of CrPC (Chapter XIII of BNSS) before a prosecution is launched cannot be interfered with by the courts either under section 401 or under section 482 of the CrPC (Ss. 442 or 528 of BNSS).

In King-Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad, AIR 1945 PC 18 case, the Privy Council observed that the functions of the Judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; the Court’s function begins when a charge is preferred before it, and not until then.

S. 173 BNSS:

Information in Cognizable Cases:

(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where the offence is committed, may be given orally or by electronic communication to an officer in charge of a police station, and if given—

(i) orally, it shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it;

(ii) by electronic communication, it shall be taken on record by him on being signed within three days by the person giving it,

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:

Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under section 64, section 65, section 66, section 67, section 68, section 69, section 70, section 71, section 74, section 75, section 76, section 77, section 78, section 79 or section 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer:

Provided further that—

(a) in the event that the person against whom an offence under section 64, section 65, section 66, section 67, section 68, section 69, section 70, section 71, section 74, section 75, section 76, section 77, section 78, section 79 or section 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is alleged to have been committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place of such person’s choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be;

(b) the recording of such information shall be videographed;

(c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (6) of section 183 as soon as possible.

(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant or the victim.

(3) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in section 175, on receipt of information relating to the commission of any cognizable offence, which is made punishable for three years or more but less than seven years, 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,—

(i) 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; or

(ii) proceed with investigation when there exists a prima facie case.

(4) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1), may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Sanhita, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence failing which such aggrieved person may make an application to the Magistrate.

Registering FIR Under Section 173 of BNSS:

In Ramakant Singh v. State of Bihar, 2006 Cr LJ 4752 (4754) case, the Court observed that the term “first information report” or “FIR” is not mentioned anywhere in the Code, but these words are understood to mean information recorded under Section 154 of CrPC (S. 173 BNSS).

In T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala AIR 2001 SC 2637 case, the Supreme Court observed: “Subsection (1) of Section 154 of CrPC (S. 173 BNSS), is commonly known as the First Information Report (FIR), though this term is not used in the Code … As its nickname suggests, it is the earliest and the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer in charge of a police station.”

The police can take action even before the FIR is recorded, In State of Maharashtra v. Ahmed Shaikh Babajan, 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 224 case, the Supreme Court observed that “FIR is not a condition precedent to the setting of criminal law into motion.”

Meaning of the word “Information”:

The word “Information” in this section means something in the nature of a complaint or accusation or at least information of a crime given with the object of putting the police in motion in order to investigate.

In Tohal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1989 Cri LJ 1350 (Raj) case, the Court has opined that: “If the telephonic message has been given to officer in charge of a police station, the person giving the message is an ascertained one or is capable of being ascertained the information has been reduced to writing as required under S.154 of CrPC and it is faithful record of such information and the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and is not cryptic one or in complete in essential details, it would constitute FIR.”

In Goverdhan Lal v. State, 2004 Cr LJ 3966 (3969) (Raj) case, the Court held that mere telephonic message to the police informing about any incident would not be treated FIR, as normally a telephonic message is given to the police so that it may reach the spot immediately.

If unanimous person inform about the offence to police on telephone, in that case FIR cannot be registered because there is no person to sign the information reduced in writing and to whom the police can read out the oral statement reduced to writing.

According to Section 2(g) of the BNSS, cognizable offence means an offence in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the first schedule or under any other law for the time being enforce, arrest without warrant. The use of phrase “commission of a cognizable offence” means the cognizable offence is already done by the accused.

Section 173(1) of BNSS deals with the information in the cognizable offence. When any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before the officer in charge of a police station, the officer in charge has no option but to register the case on the basis thereof. If the information is oral he has to reduce it in writing or get reduced into writing under his direction. The oral information reduced to writing must be read over to the informant. Written information about the offence or the oral information reduced to writing must be signed by the informant and a corresponding entry of the substance of the information be made in a book known as the Station Diary or General Diary. Section 173(2) lays down that, a copy of information as recorder under Section 173(1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.

In Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 3(SC) case, the Court held that the information lodged with Police disclosing cognizable offence, the officer-in-charge of a Police station is statutorily obliged to register a case.

While the BNSS aims to be more victim-centric, certain provisions may inadvertently undermine victims’ rights. For instance, Section 173(2) states that a copy of the FIR shall be given to the “informant or the victim,” which could result in situations where the victim does not receive the FIR if they are not the informant. Legal experts have suggested amending the language to ensure both parties receive copies, thereby safeguarding victims’ participatory rights in the criminal justice process.

Concept of Zero FIR and eFIR:

Concept of Zero FIR:

By adding the words “irrespective of the area where the offence is committed”, the scope is expanded to lodge an FIR. This corresponds to the concept of ‘zero FIR’.

• SHOs shall ensure that whenever any information about a cognizable offence is received irrespective of its territorial jurisdiction, he shall register a zero FIR without any delay and further transfer the relevant documents to the concerned Police Station having jurisdiction to investigate through electronic means or otherwise.
• The SHOs shall also ensure that the complainant shall be informed about the registration Zero FIR and further guide him/her to peruse the matter with the concerned Police Station. A GD entry in this regard must be entered in the GD register.
• SHOs shall send such Zero FIR in Daily Crime Report (DCR) to the supervisory officers.
• It is clearly instructed that upon failing of registration of Zero FIR for the offence committed outside the jurisdiction of Police Station, concerned SHO shall be responsible for the same and strict action will be initiated against him.
• Whenever any Zero FIR is received in any Police Station from the other Police Station, concerned SHO shall immediately register the FIR and further investigate the case in accordance with law.
• If a woman gives any information regarding the commission of offences under section 64 to 71, 74 to 79 or 124 of BNS-2023 and POCSO Act, then SHO shall ensure that information must be recorded immediately only by a women Police Officer.
• If woman complainant/victim is physically/mentally disabled, then SHO shall ensure that such information shall be recorded by Women Police Officer after taking the assistance of interpreter/Special educator at the residence of person/victim or at a convenient place of such person/victim.
• Whenever, any information in respect of commission of offences against woman i.e. under section 64 to 71, 74, 76 to 79, 124, 143 and 144 of BNSS 2023 is received, FIR shall be registered immediately. If any’ SHO/ Police officer failed to lodge the FIR, he/she would be prosecuted under section 199(c) of BNS-2023 and separate departmental action shall also be initiated against erring Police officials/SHO.
• SHOs shall ensure that victim’s identity shall not be disclosed/revealed against whom offences 64 to 71 of BNS- 2023 (i.e. rape cases, sexual assault cases & POCSO cases) have been committed.

Concept of eFIR:

By adding the word “by electronic communication,” thereby it is made contemporary. Clause (ii) is added in subsection (1); this is known as eFIR.

• Whenever any information of cognizable offence is received through email or otherwise by any electronic means, SHOs shall maintain an e-complaint register in the police station.
• SHOs should further ensure that complainant be informed through email/phone calls to visit in the Police Station for signing the complaint for formally registering the FIR to proceed into the matter according to law. A GD entry in this respect should be entered, accordingly.
• If complainant fails to appear in the Police Station for signing his/her complaint, then SHO shall make a GD entry in the GD and also inform the concerned SDPO in this regard.
• If complainant appears after the stipulated period of 03 days described the under complaint. BNSS, then SHO should register the case after taking the signature of the complainant.

Object of Registering FIR:

The principal object of the first information report from the point of view of the information is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of view of the investigating authorities is to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps to trace and bring the guilty to book.

In State of U.P vs. Krishna Mater, 2010 (2) L.S 42 (SC) case, the Court held that the basic purpose of filing an FIR is to set criminal law into motion and not to state all the minute details therein.

In Dilawar Singh vs State Of Delhi (MANU/SC/3678/2007) case, the Court observed: “After all registration of FIR involves only the process of entering the substance of the information relating to the Commission of a cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer in charge… as indicated in Sec. 154 of the Code”.

The objects of registering FIR can be summarized as follows:

• To have it signed by the informant if submitted in writing.
• To reduce the substance of data given of a cognizable offense, whenever given orally, into a composed written form.
• To maintain a record of information of the cognizable offences committed.
• To initiate investigation on receipt of information of commission of cognizable offence.
• To inform the District Magistrate and the District Superintendent of Police, who are responsible for the peace and safety of the district, of the offence, reported at the police station.
• To make known to the judiciary and judicial officers before whom the case has to be ultimately tried, about the facts and scenario which came out after the immediate occurrence of the crime.
• To safeguard and protect the accused against subsequent additions or variations.

Essentials of FIR:

• It must be first in point of time.
• It must be information, responsible but not vague, gossip or hear say.
• It must relate to the commission of a cognizable offence.
• It must be made to officer in-charge of a police station.
• It must be in writing or put into writing if given orally and read over to the Informant.
• It must be signed by the informant.

Essentials of FIR w.r.t. the Offence:

FIR is an important document although it is not a substantive piece of evidence but at times it affects the prosecution case. Therefore correct recording of FIR is required. FIR should contain as much information as is available at the time of recording it. The Police Officer in Charge or registering officer must ask following questions to make FIR complete.

• ­What the informant got to convey?
• What is his capacity – eye witness victim or hear say?
• Who possibly committed crime?
• Who is the victim of the crime?
• When did it occur?
• Where did it occur? (the spot)
• Why did it occur? (Motive of crime)
• Which way? (How)
• Who else was present then?
• What was taken away by the accused? (Any article/property)
• What traces were left by accused? (Physical clues).

Who can Lodge FIR?

• An aggrieved person or somebody on his behalf, or
• Any person who is aware of the offence by being either: (a) an eye witness and/or (b) hearsay account, or
• The accused himself, or
• The Station Head Officer (SHO) on his own knowledge or information.

In Hallu vs State of MP (1974) SC 1936 case, the Court observed: “Section 154 CrPC (S. 173 BNSS) does not require that the report must be given by a person who has personal knowledge of the incident reported. The section speaks of information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence given to an officer incharge of police station”

Steps Involved in Registering FIR:

• Informant provides information about cognizable offence orally or written to the officer in charge of a police station
• The officer reduces the oral information in composed writing.
• The officer read over the statement to the informant
• The Informant must sign the statement
• The officer makes corresponding entries in the Station Diary.
• The copy of the statement is given to the informant free of cost.

Important Points Related to FIR:

• FIR is lodged with a view to set the investigation process in motion and not for the purpose of setting down on paper all known facts and circumstances about the incident (State of Orissa v. Dilip Kumar Chand, 1987 Cr LJ 1242 (Ori-DB))
• FIR does not constitute substantive evidence (Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1991 SC 31)
• FIR is not condition precedent for setting up the criminal motion.
• Delay in lodging FIR without satisfactory explanation is looked upon with grave suspicion because there are chances of fabrication. Wherever there is delay it must be properly explained in the FIR – itself.
• There cannot be more than one F.I.R. in one case; however, there may be many the victims in one case.  (Ram Lai Singh v. State. AIR 1958 M.P. 380)
• An FIR of confession nature made by an accused person is inadmissible in evidence against him except the fact that he made statement soon after the offence, identifying him as a maker of the report, which is admissible as evidence of his conduct u/s 8 of the Evidence Act and the information furnished by him, leading to the discovery of a fact, which is admissible u/s 27 evidence act (Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. the State of Bihar – SSCA 37/65)

Guidelines of the Supreme Court for Registering FIR:

In Lalita Kumari vs Govt. Of U.P., AIR 2012 SC 1515 case, the Bench consisting of P Sathasivam J., B.S. Chauhan J., Ranjana Prakash Desai J., Ranjan Gogoi J., S.A. Bobde J. gave following guidelines regarding FIR:

• Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
• If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether the cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
• If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
• The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if a cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
• The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
• As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:

• Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
• Commercial offences
• Medical negligence cases
• Corruption cases
• Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for the delay.

The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.

• While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and in any case, it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
• Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.

Evidentiary Value of FIR:

An FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence. That is, it cannot be considered as evidence of facts stated therein. However, FIR may be used for the following purposes:

1. It can be used to corroborate an informant witness u/s 157 of Evidence Act. But it cannot be used to contradict or discredit other witnesses.
2. It can be used to contradict an informant witness u/s 145 of Evidence Act.
3. It can be used by the defence to impeach the credit of the maker under sec. 155(3) of the Evidence Act.
4. A non-confessional FIR given by an accused can be used as an admission against him u/s 21 of Evidence Act.
5. FIR can be used as a dying declaration as substantive evidence If it relates to the cause or occasion or circumstances and facts which resulted in the informant’s death. within the meaning of section 32(1) of the Evidence Act.

FIR in case of Acid Attack, Rape, Harassment under Section 173 BNSS:

There is a proviso attached to Section 173(1). This proviso is applicable to the woman against whom an offence under section 64, section 65, section 66, section 67, section 68, section 69, section 70, section 71, section 74, section 75, section 76, section 77, section 78, section 79 or section 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer or such victim is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place of such person’s choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be.

The recording of such information shall be video graphed and the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under 183 of BNSS as soon as possible.

Preliminary Enquiry:

According to Section 173(3) of BNSS, for cognizable offences punishable with imprisonment of 3 years or more but less than 7 years, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted within 14 days, subject to prior approval from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

• Section 173(3) of BNSS has also given statutory recognition for conducting preliminary enquiry of cases punishable with imprisonment of three years but less than seven years. The same shall be conducted after permission from their respective SDPOs.
• The scope of the preliminary enquiry is only to ascertain whether any cognizable offence is committed or otherwise and if cognizable offence appears to be committed, then immediately register under the relevant sections of law and to investigate the case as per law.
• SHO/EO as per BNSS-2023 must conclude and the preliminary enquiry within a period of 14 days and GD entry of each steps taken under enquiry, shall be recorded.
• After conducting the enquiry, if SHO/EO comes the conclusion that no offence has been committed, then he will submit his finding before the concerned SDPO.
• SDPO shall thorough examine the enquiry report/findings of the SHO/EO and pass an appropriate order as deem fit according the facts and circumstances of case within 14 days from the receipt of information, whether FIR is to be registered or otherwise.
• All SDPOs/SHOs/EO shall maintain the complete record of proceedings conducted in any preliminary enquiry on day to day basis.

The introduction of a preliminary inquiry for certain offences allows police officers to assess the validity of a complaint before registering an FIR. This provision, however, contrasts with the Supreme Court’s directive in Lalita Kumari v/s Government of UP case. The Supreme Court, in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, emphasized the mandatory nature of FIR registration upon receiving information about a cognizable offence, limiting preliminary inquiries to exceptional cases. The BNSS’s provision for a 14 day preliminary inquiry period potentially conflicts with this ruling, raising concerns about delays in justice delivery and possible misuse of discretion by law enforcement agencies.

Delay in lodging FIR:

Following factors to be kept in mind while dealing with delay in lodging FIR:

• Delay, if any, in making the FIR should be explained in the FIR itself. In the First Information itself reason for delay has to be explained. It should be recorded in the FIR. It should be believable and well explained.
• Delay, in lodging the FIR, if not sufficiently explained; it will create suspicion in the mind of court that there was no eyewitness to the incident and lodging the FIR was the result of an afterthought.
• Delay in filing FIR in the case of rape cannot be used as a ground against prosecution case and reason for acquittal

Refusal to Lodge FIR under Section 173 of BNSS:

According to Section 173(4) of BNSS if a police officer refuses to record the information, the aggrieved person can approach to the Superintendent of Police and subsequently, if he again aggrieved then approach to the Magistrate, to initiate an investigation. In this case Magistrate will have all the powers of the officer in-charge of police station including Arrest, Search and Seizure.

Person seeking to register FIR should know that the FIR can only registered for cognizable offences only and not for non-cognizable offences. Hence he should be sure that the offence is of cognizable nature (Refer Schedule I of BNSS). The police must register FIR in case of cognizable offence after receiving the information about it from the informant.

In Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 3(SC) case, the Court held that the information lodged with Police disclosing cognizable offence, the officer-in-charge of a Police station is statutorily obliged to register a case.

In Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 case, the Court held that genuineness, reliability, and credibility of the information is no ground to refuse to register the information.

Sometimes, the police may refuse to lodge a first information report in case of cognizable offence. This can be both legal and illegal. In cases or is not in their legal capacity to take cognizance or the offence is of non-cognizable nature, it will be held legal. But where police refuses to file the complaint for blatant reasons, without any substantial legal ground, it is contrary to law. When a police officer refuses to register the FIR on the ground that it discloses a non-cognizable offence, he must inform the informant and direct him to file a complaint to the magistrate. In case the offence committed is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of a police station, information should be recorded and forwarded to the appropriate police-station having jurisdiction, otherwise refusing to record on this ground will amount to a dereliction of duty.

In State of A.P. vs. Punati Ravulu, AIR 1993 SC 2644 case, the Court held that refusal to record information is a dereliction of duty by a public officer.

Under Section 173(4), in the event that the Officer in Charge of the police station refuses to receive or record information of such cognizable offence, then the informant can inform such refusal to the Superintendent of Police concerned in writing and by post. If the Superintendent of Police is satisfied that the information discloses a cognizable offence and report should be registered, then he should act in terms of Chapter XIII of BNSS. He can do the investigation by registering FIR himself or ask his subordinate police officer to do so. Such police officer appointed has all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.

If the complainant failed to get register FIR with the Superintendent of Police, the complainant is legally entitled to file a complaint to the Judicial Magistrate under section 175(3) BNSS read with section 210 BNSS thereby praying FIR to be registered by the police and investigation into the matter.

If the complainant fails to get register FIR through the Judicial Magistrate/ Metropolitan Magistrate, then he can file a Writ Petition in the respective High Court for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus against the defaulting Police officers, inter alia, to Register the FIR and directing him to show cause

• Why he has not registered the FIR;
  • Why disciplinary proceedings for Misconduct should not be initiated against him for dereliction of duty;
  • Why he should not be suspended from Police service for interfering in the administration of justice and shielding the accused person.

Distinguishing Between FIR and Complaint:

FIR	Complaint
FIR is not defined under the code. But it is nick name used for the “first information” of a cognizable offence recorded by an in charge of police station.	A complaint is defined u/s 2(h) of BNSS as any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Sanhita, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.
FIR is lodged with an officer in charge of a police station of the jurisdiction of the place of commission of crime.	The complaint is filed with the Magistrate either orally or writing.
It may be lodged only for cognizable offences only.	It may be filed for both cognizable as well as non-cognizable offences
The FIR has prescribed format	There is no prescribed format for the complaint.
The informant is not bound to take an oath before the police officer while lodging FIR	The Complainant must take an oath before the Magistrate.
It is not a substantive piece of evidence.	The complaint itself is substantial evidence.
On registering FIR investigation is done by a police officer without prior permission of the Magistrate.	On receiving complaint the inquiry is done by Magistrate or officer under Magistrate’s direction
FIR once registered cannot be withdrawn.	Under Section 280 of BNSS, in case of summons case, the complainant can withdraw complaint against all or any of the accused, at any time before a final order is passed.
The informant would not be liable for malicious prosecution if the information furnished by him is found to be incorrect or false.	The complainant is liable for malicious prosecution if the complaint is found to be false.
The magistrate cannot take into cognizance of an offence.	Under Section 210 BNSS, the magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of an offence upon a private complaint.

Conclusion:

The concept of the First Information Report (FIR) under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is significant as it sets investigation into motion. While retaining the core objectives of ensuring prompt registration of cognizable offences and initiating timely investigation, BNSS aims to modernize and streamline the procedural aspects through the incorporation of technology, victim rights, and transparency.

The emphasis on zero FIRs, e-FIRs, mandatory timelines, and increased accountability of the police signifies a shift towards a more citizen-centric approach. However, the successful implementation of these provisions will depend on adequate training, infrastructure development, and public awareness. Overall, the FIR mechanism under BNSS reflects a forward-looking vision, aligning legal processes with contemporary societal needs while safeguarding constitutional rights.

For More Articles on BNSS Click Here

For More Articles on Different Acts, Click Here