Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court, in a scathing judgment, held both the Delhi Police and U.P. Police remiss in their statutory duty to register an FIR following the suspicious death of a 20-year-old man. The Court directed:
- The Delhi Police to register a Zero FIR under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and transfer all materials to the U.P. Police within one week.
- The U.P. Police to forthwith register or re-register an FIR under Section 103 BNS and other relevant sections and investigate the matter in accordance with law.
The Court noted with “serious consternation” the failure of both police forces and remarked, “FIR is not an encyclopaedia,” stressing that even minimal suspicion of a cognizable offence mandates registration.
Facts
- The petitioner’s brother left home in Delhi on 03.12.2024 and was found dead the same night in his car in Greater Noida, U.P., with a carbon monoxide cylinder, syringes, and a note reading “IF YOU WANT TO MEET THIS PERSON, HE IS DEAD”.
- The Delhi Police initially registered a missing person complaint but refused to register a murder FIR, citing lack of jurisdiction and absence of a clear cognizable offence.
- The U.P. Police too conducted inquest proceedings but did not register an FIR, instead claiming that the death might be due to carbon monoxide poisoning and awaiting forensic reports.
- Despite complaints made by the family to both police departments on 20.12.2024 and 23.12.2024 alleging murder, no FIR was registered.
Issues
- Whether the Delhi Police and U.P. Police complied with the legal mandate under Section 173 of BNSS and applicable standing orders?
- Whether the decisions in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. and Amit Kumar v. Union of India were adhered to?
- Whether the refusal to register an FIR was justified in the facts of the case?
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioner argued that despite grave and suspicious circumstances, including visible injuries and suspicious materials found in the car, no FIR was registered by either police force.
- It was contended that the petitioner made multiple representations seeking registration of an FIR for murder, but was met with apathy.
- Having exhausted all police channels, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, which granted liberty to move the jurisdictional High Court.
Respondent’s Arguments
Delhi Police:
- Claimed that the information received was only about a missing person, which didn’t disclose a cognizable offence.
- Asserted that since the body was found in U.P., jurisdiction lay with the U.P. Police, and no Zero FIR was necessary.
- Cited recent Supreme Court judgments permitting preliminary enquiry before registration of FIR under Section 173(3) BNSS.
U.P. Police:
- Argued that the case was treated as a ‘suspicious death’ and inquest proceedings were initiated under Section 194 BNSS.
- Claimed that without conclusive forensic reports confirming homicidal death, registration of FIR would be premature.
- Submitted that the FSL report didn’t rule out death by carbon monoxide poisoning, and therefore, a murder case wasn’t made out.
Analysis of the Law
- The Court analysed Section 173 BNSS and observed that it mandates registration of FIR for every information relating to a cognizable offence “irrespective of the area where the offence is committed.”
- It emphasized that Lalita Kumari lays down a binding obligation to register FIRs in all cases where a cognizable offence is disclosed, without requiring conclusive proof.
- The Court referred to Amit Kumar v. Union of India to highlight that inquest proceedings and criminal investigation are separate processes and not mutually exclusive.
- It held that the police’s reasoning was flawed and contrary to the statute and binding precedents.
Precedent Analysis
- Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P.: FIR must be registered if cognizable offence is disclosed. Police cannot conduct preliminary inquiries unless expressly permitted.
- Amit Kumar v. Union of India: FIR registration is mandatory despite pending inquest proceedings. Inquest under Section 194 BNSS is distinct from FIR registration under Section 173.
- Imran Pratapgadhi (2025): Preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS is permissible only in limited circumstances and must not delay FIR registration.
- Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.: Magistrate has wide powers to direct FIR registration under Section 156(3) CrPC (now BNSS), but this does not preclude High Court jurisdiction.
Court’s Reasoning
- The Court held that both police forces “did violence” to the mandatory statutory framework by failing to act promptly.
- It rejected the excuse of jurisdiction under BNSS and noted the legislative intent behind the words “irrespective of the area where the offence is committed”.
- The refusal to register an FIR on the ground that the offence was not clearly identifiable was termed “anomalous” and contrary to settled principles.
- The Court was particularly critical of the U.P. Police returning the deceased’s car to the family instead of seizing it for forensic examination, resulting in loss of vital evidence.
Conclusion
- The Court allowed the petition and directed both Delhi and U.P. Police to immediately register FIRs under Section 103 BNS for murder.
- Held that neither police force could justify non-registration based on territorial jurisdiction or pending inquest.
- Strongly condemned the loss of evidence and delay, expressing “regret at the dereliction of duty” by police officers involved.
Implications
- Reinforces that Zero FIRs must be registered regardless of jurisdiction under Section 173 BNSS.
- Affirms binding nature of Lalita Kumari and Amit Kumar judgments in mandatory FIR registration.
- Clarifies that inquest proceedings cannot delay criminal investigation.
- Highlights that police cannot use uncertainty over the precise offence to delay filing of an FIR.
- Serves as a precedent for enforcing police accountability where cognizable offences are ignored.