Question
Which of the following statements about a Zero First Information Report (Zero FIR) under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is/are correct?
1A Zero FIR can be lodged at a police station, even though the place of commission of a cognizable/non-cognizable offence is outside the territorial jurisdiction of that police station.
2The Officer-in-Charge of the police station where a Zero FIR has been lodged may, with the permission of the competent authority, initiate a preliminary enquiry.
3Under Zero FIR, it is obligatory for the informant to furnish information electronically.
A1, 2 and 3
B2 and 3 only
C1 only
D2 only (Official UPSC Answer)
⚠️ Factual Position — All Three Statements Are Incorrect
UPSC’s official answer is (D) 2 only, implying Statement 2 is correct. However, a precise reading of Section 173(3) BNSS and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat establishes that the preliminary enquiry under S.173(3) occurs before the FIR is registered — not after a Zero FIR has been lodged. Statement 2 says the enquiry happens after the Zero FIR is lodged, which is legally incorrect. On strict analysis, all three statements are wrong. UPSC’s official key appears to accept Statement 2 despite this error. For exam purposes, mark (D); for understanding, know that Statement 2 is also factually problematic.
All Three Statements — Why Each Is Wrong
1✗ Wrong — “non-cognizable” is the planted error
Zero FIR for “cognizable/non-cognizable offence” outside jurisdiction
Section 173(1) BNSS governs Zero FIR for cognizable offences only. The addition of “non-cognizable” makes Statement 1 wrong. Non-cognizable offences are handled under Section 174 BNSS and require a Magistrate’s order for investigation — they cannot be the subject of a Zero FIR.
✗ Error: “non-cognizable” included — Section 173(1) = cognizable only
“Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where the offence is committed…” — Zero FIR applies to cognizable offences only.
2✗ Wrong — preliminary enquiry is BEFORE FIR, not after Zero FIR
Officer-in-Charge may initiate preliminary enquiry AFTER Zero FIR has been lodged
This is the most important error in the question. Statement 2 places the preliminary enquiry after a Zero FIR has been lodged. But per Section 173(3) and the Supreme Court’s unambiguous ruling:The Supreme Court in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat held: “The preliminary enquiry which may be conducted under Section 173(3) of the BNSS is before registration of the FIR.”
The entire purpose of the preliminary enquiry is to decide whether to register the FIR at all — to prevent frivolous FIRs. If the Zero FIR has already been lodged, the question of a preliminary enquiry to decide whether to register it does not arise. Statement 2 inverts the sequence entirely.
✗ Supreme Court — Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat
“The preliminary enquiry which may be conducted under Section 173(3) of the BNSS is before registration of the FIR.” — Not after a Zero FIR has been lodged.
3✗ Wrong — electronic is optional, not obligatory
It is “obligatory” to furnish information electronically
Section 173(1) explicitly offers three equal modes — oral, written, or electronic. Electronic is a new facility BNSS added; it is not mandatory. The word “obligatory” is the error. If information is given electronically, the informant must sign within 3 days — but using electronic means in the first place is entirely optional.
✗ Error: “obligatory” — Section 173(1) says “orally or by electronic communication”
Three equal modes: oral + written + electronic. None is mandatory. Electronic = an option added by BNSS, not a requirement.
The Correct Sequence Under Section 173 BNSS
| Step | What happens | Statutory basis |
| Step 1 | Information received about cognizable offence (oral/written/electronic) | S.173(1) — “irrespective of area” |
| Step 2 — KEY | For 3–7 year offences: Officer-in-Charge MAY seek DSP permission for preliminary enquiry BEFORE registering FIR | S.173(3) — SC: Imran Pratapgadhi — enquiry is BEFORE FIR |
| Step 3 | If prima facie case found (or for other offences): FIR registered — if outside jurisdiction, registered as Zero FIR (no serial number) | S.173(1) — Zero FIR |
| Step 4 | Zero FIR transferred to jurisdictional police station within 15 days | S.173(1) — transfer provision |
| Step 5 | Jurisdictional station investigates | S.173/175 |
Section 173 BNSS — Complete Reference
| Provision | Detail |
| S.173(1) | Zero FIR — cognizable offences only · oral OR written OR electronic (all optional) · irrespective of jurisdiction |
| S.173(3) | Preliminary enquiry BEFORE FIR · Only for 3–7 year offences · DSP permission required · 14-day limit · SC confirmed in Imran Pratapgadhi |
| S.173(4) | If police refuse to register — approach SP → Magistrate |
| Statement 1 error | “Cognizable/non-cognizable” — Zero FIR = cognizable only |
| Statement 2 error | Sequence inverted — preliminary enquiry is BEFORE FIR, not after Zero FIR is lodged |
| Statement 3 error | “Obligatory” electronic — wrong. All three modes are optional. |
| BNSS in force | 1 July 2024 · Replaced CrPC 1973 · S.173 = equivalent of old S.154 CrPC + new additions |
| Origin of Zero FIR | Justice Verma Committee (post-2012 Nirbhaya case) · Now given statutory recognition in S.173(1) BNSS |
Memory Trick
🧠 Three Rules to Lock In
Zero FIR = Cognizable ONLY: If any statement adds “non-cognizable” to Zero FIR, it is wrong. S.173(1) is clear — cognizable offences only. Non-cognizable = S.174 = Magistrate’s order needed.
Preliminary enquiry = BEFORE FIR, never after: The Supreme Court (Imran Pratapgadhi) confirmed S.173(3) enquiry is before FIR registration. Purpose = decide whether to register. Once Zero FIR is lodged, the enquiry question is already settled.
Electronic = option, not obligation: BNSS expanded FIR modes to include e-FIR — a welcome addition. But oral and written remain equally valid. “Obligatory electronic” = always wrong.
