Introduction
Whether registration of a First Information Report (FIR) is indispensable for commencing a criminal investigation remains a pivotal question in Indian criminal procedure. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), largely retains the principle that FIR registration ordinarily precedes investigation into a cognisable offence. Yet, this principle is not absolute. The BNSS now expressly recognises a limited preliminary inquiry, while judicial precedents have permitted narrowly defined verification measures before formal registration.
FIR as the Normal Starting Point
Section 173 BNSS governs the recording of information relating to cognisable offences. Where such information clearly discloses a cognisable offence, the police have a statutory duty to register the FIR. Once registered, the police acquire authority to investigate.
Sequence: Information → FIR Registration → Investigation → Final Report/Charge Sheet.
This sequence ensures transparency, accountability, and judicial oversight.
Supreme Court’s Approach: Lalita Kumari
In Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014), the Constitution Bench held that FIR registration is mandatory when information discloses a cognisable offence. However, the Court permitted limited preliminary inquiry in categories such as:
- Matrimonial/family disputes
- Commercial offences
- Medical negligence
- Corruption cases
- Cases with abnormal delay in reporting
The inquiry’s purpose is only to ascertain whether a cognisable offence is disclosed—not to conduct a full investigation.
Section 173(3) BNSS: Statutory Innovation
BNSS introduces a significant change: for offences punishable with three to less than seven years, the officer in charge may, with prior approval of a Deputy Superintendent of Police, conduct a preliminary inquiry.
- Must be completed within 14 days (extendable by law).
- Places preliminary inquiry within the statutory framework, moving beyond judge-made safeguards.
Police Action Before FIR Registration
A distinction exists between urgent protective measures and formal investigation.
- Police may secure a crime scene, prevent harm, preserve evidence, or respond to emergencies before FIR registration.
- Such steps do not amount to full investigation.
Cases like State of U.P. v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi (1964) and Sirajuddin v. State of Madras (1971) illustrate that preliminary acts or enquiries may be permissible, especially in sensitive contexts.
Historical Principle: Khwaja Nazir Ahmad
The Privy Council in Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad (1945) emphasised broad police powers in cognisable cases and limited judicial interference. Today, under BNSS, this principle must be read alongside statutory provisions on FIR registration and preliminary inquiry.
Distinguishing the Stages
The legal framework distinguishes between preliminary verification, FIR registration, and formal investigation:
- Preliminary receipt/verification: Limited inquiry or urgent measures.
- FIR registration: Mandatory when cognisable offence disclosed.
- Formal investigation: Examination of witnesses, searches, seizures, arrests, and final report.
FIR and Investigation: Legal Position
| Situation | Is FIR Required First? | Legal Position |
|---|---|---|
| Clear cognisable offence | Yes | Section 173(1) BNSS; Lalita Kumari |
| Offence punishable by 3–7 years | Not necessarily | Preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS |
| Matrimonial, commercial, medical negligence, corruption | Limited inquiry permissible | Lalita Kumari |
| Immediate emergency response | Not necessarily | Depends on statutory basis |
| Full investigation | Yes | BNSS investigation provisions |
Immediate Action Before FIR
In life-threatening situations (e.g., an attempt to murder in progress), police need not wait for FIR registration before intervening. Protecting victims, preventing further crime, and preserving evidence take precedence. However, once the emergency is controlled, FIR registration must follow promptly.
Conclusion
Registration of an FIR remains the normal and legally significant starting point for investigation into cognisable offences. Yet, it is not an inflexible precondition to every police action. Judicial precedent in Lalita Kumari and statutory innovation under Section 173(3) BNSS recognise limited preliminary enquiries and urgent protective measures.
The correct position is not simply “no FIR means no investigation.” Instead, the law distinguishes between preliminary verification, urgent protective steps, and formal investigation. The BNSS framework balances prompt registration of genuine offences with safeguards against frivolous or abusive complaints, ensuring both accessibility and accountability in India’s criminal justice system.
