Cancellation of FIR by the Police
An officer-in-charge of a police station—or any senior police officer, for that matter—lacks the statutory authority to cancel a First Information Report (FIR). Even if a thorough investigation reveals that no cognisable offence was committed, police officers cannot unilaterally void or cancel an FIR.
Investigation and Final Police Report
Upon completing the investigation, the investigating officer is required to submit a final police report (Closure/Final Report) before the jurisdictional magistrate for approval, as mandated under Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
When Is an FIR Legally Cancelled?
Legally, an FIR is considered cancelled only when the magistrate accepts this final report. Conversely, if the magistrate rejects the report, the FIR remains valid and active, and the legal proceedings continue accordingly.
Key Points on FIR Cancellation
- An officer-in-charge of a police station lacks the statutory authority to cancel an FIR.
- Senior police officers cannot unilaterally void or cancel an FIR.
- After completing the investigation, the investigating officer must submit a final police report before the jurisdictional magistrate.
- The final police report may be a closure/final report.
- The magistrate’s acceptance of the final report results in the FIR being considered cancelled.
- If the magistrate rejects the final report, the FIR remains valid and active.
- Legal proceedings continue accordingly when the magistrate rejects the final report.
Classification of Police Report in Final Form
When a police investigation reveals that no trial is warranted, the officer-in-charge submits a final report (excluding a charge sheet) to the jurisdictional magistrate under Section 193 BNSS. These reports typically fall into five categories:
1. Final Report True (FRT)
Final Report True (FRT): The alleged incident occurred as reported, but the named accused persons are not criminally liable (e.g., a theft took place, but those named in the FIR were not involved).
2. Final Report False (FRF)
Final Report False (FRF): The alleged incident did not occur at all, and the accusations against the suspect are fabricated or false (e.g., no theft ever occurred at the scene).
3. Final Report Mistake of Fact (FRMF)
Final Report Mistake of Fact (FRMF): The incident occurred under a factual misapprehension that does not constitute an offence (e.g., allegations of kidnapping and rape that turn out to be a consensual elopement and marriage between adults).
4. Final Report Mistake of Law (FRML)
Final Report Mistake of Law (FRML): The facts alleged do not legally constitute an offence under the law (e.g., consensual marriage between adults misconstrued or alleged as an offence).
5. Final Report Non-Cognisable (FRNC)
Final Report Non-Cognisable (FRNC): The incident occurred, but the investigation reveals only a non-cognisable offence (e.g., allegations under Section 118 BNS are disproved, revealing only a non-cognisable offence under Section 115(2) BNS).
| Final Report | Meaning | Basic Position |
|---|---|---|
| FRT | Final Report True | The incident occurred, but the named accused persons are not criminally liable. |
| FRF | Final Report False | The alleged incident did not occur, and the accusations are false. |
| FRMF | Final Report: Mistake of Fact | The incident resulted from a factual misunderstanding and does not constitute an offence. |
| FRML | Final Report: Mistake of Law | Facts alleged do not legally constitute an offence. |
| FRNC | Final Report: Non-Cognisable | Investigation reveals only a non-cognisable offence. |
Judicial Disposal & Constructive Cancellation
Statutory Note: The BNSS contains no explicit provision for the “cancellation” of an FIR by the police or the magistrate.
Effect of Acceptance
- Effect of Acceptance: If the Magistrate accepts any of the above Final Reports, the proceedings are dropped and the FIR is constructively deemed cancelled—provided no Protest/Narazi Petition is filed by the informant.
- Release under Section 189 BNSS: Where evidence is deficient, the Investigating Officer may release the accused on a bond/surety under Section 189 BNSS and recommend discharge in the Final Report.
- Discretion of the Magistrate: The Magistrate is not bound by the police conclusion. As established in India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (1989), the magistrate can disagree with the final report, examine witness statements recorded during investigation, take cognisance of the offence, and issue a process against the accused.
Cancellation of FIR by the Magistrate
Every investigation must be completed without unnecessary delay. Upon completing the investigation, the police are required to submit a final report under Section 193 of the BNSS, detailing the facts established and the conclusions reached.
Upon receipt of this report, the Magistrate may take cognisance of the offence under Section 210 of the BNSS if a prima facie case is made out. Conversely, if no offence is disclosed, the magistrate may accept the final report and drop the proceedings—in which case the FIR is deemed to be cancelled or closed.
Types of Negative Final Reports
This typical outcome occurs when the investigating officer submits a negative final report, such as:
- FRT (Final Report True — offence occurred, but untraced/no evidence)
- FRMF (Final Report Mistake of Fact)
- FRML (Final Report Mistake of Law)
- FRNC (Final Report Non-Cognisable)
Effect of a Charge Sheet on FIR Cancellation
However, there is no dropping of proceedings or constructive cancellation of the FIR if the police submit a charge sheet (or final report alleging commission of an offence) against the accused, as the magistrate then proceeds with judicial trial.
Withdrawal of FIR
An FIR, once lodged, cannot be withdrawn by the informant. Under the statutory scheme, an FIR is lodged with the Officer-in-Charge of a police station regarding the commission of a cognisable offence. Because cognisable offences are serious in nature, the law treats them as crimes committed not merely against the individual victim but against the State itself.
Consequently, an individual victim or informant lacks the legal standing to unilaterally withdraw a recorded FIR. Furthermore, neither the officer-in-charge of a police station, any senior police officer, nor the jurisdictional magistrate possesses the statutory authority to allow the withdrawal of an FIR. Once the criminal law is set in motion, it must proceed to its lawful conclusion in accordance with the statutory framework.
Quashing/Cancellation of FIR by High Court
While a police station is the designated place to register an FIR for a cognisable crime, the process is sometimes abused to settle personal or political scores, convert civil disputes into criminal cases, or fabricate non-bailable offences. To check such abuse, Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), empowers High Courts to quash or cancel false, frivolous, or malicious FIRs.
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal Guidelines for Quashing FIR
The landmark State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal guidelines set out key conditions where the High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS:
| magistrate’sGround for Quashing FIR | Explanation |
|---|---|
| No Offence Disclosed | Uncontroverted allegations in the FIR, accepted at face value, fail to establish any offence or construct a viable case. |
| Non-Cognisable Offence | Allegations reveal only a non-cognisable offence, making a police investigation impermissible without a Magistrate’s order under Section 174 BNSS. |
| Absurd or Improbable Allegations | Claims are so inherently outlandish that no reasonable person could justify proceeding against the accused. |
| Express Statutory Bar | Specific provisions in the BNSS or governing law prohibit the initiation or continuation of proceedings. |
| Malicious Prosecution | Criminal proceedings are manifestly launched with ulterior motives, such as personal vengeance or defamation. |
Key Grounds for High Court Intervention
- No Offence Disclosed: Uncontroverted allegations in the FIR, accepted at face value, fail to establish any offence or construct a viable case.
- Non-Cognisable Offence: Allegations reveal only a non-cognisable offence, making a police investigation impermissible without a magistrate’s order under Section 174 BNSS.
- Absurd or Improbable Allegations: Claims are so inherently outlandish that no reasonable person could justify proceeding against the accused.
- Express Statutory Bar: Specific provisions in the BNSS or governing law prohibit the initiation or continuation of proceedings.
- Malicious Prosecution: Criminal proceedings are manifestly launched with ulterior motives, such as personal vengeance or defamation.
Conclusion
The procedural framework governing an FIR under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), underscores a fundamental principle of Indian criminal jurisprudence: once criminal law is set in motion, it operates beyond the private will of individual parties or the executive discretion of police officers. Because a cognisable offence is legally recognised as a crime against the State, neither the informant can withdraw an FIR nor can police officers unilaterally cancel it—even if an investigation reveals no wrongdoing.
Instead, the law maintains strict checks and balances through judicial oversight. Constructive cancellation of an FIR can only occur when a jurisdictional magistrate accepts a negative police report (such as an FRT, FRF, FRMF, FRML, or FRNC) under Section 193 BNSS, subject to the informant’s right to file a protest petition. Where an FIR is manifestly malicious, baseless, or legally barred, the High Court holds the inherent power under Section 528 BNSS to quash the proceedings to prevent the abuse of judicial process. Ultimately, these statutory safeguards balance the necessity of thorough law enforcement with the protection of innocent citizens against arbitrary or frivolous prosecution.
