'Zero FIR' Has Been Introduced U/S 173 BNSS To Ensure Victims Can File Complaints Regardless Of Jurisdiction: Kerala HC

Section 173 BNSS specifically states that 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. If given 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.

If it is given 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. 

The court after perusing the provision said that as per Section 173(1) BNSS, the police is mandatorily required to register FIR upon receiving any information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where the offence is committed.

"In other words, the police cannot refuse to register an FIR on the grounds of “not having territorial jurisdiction” over the offence for the reason that some part of the offence was committed outside the local jurisdiction of that concerned police station," the court underscored. 

The court noted that under Section 173(3) BNSS on receipt of information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence for offences punishable for three years or more but less than seven years, the officer in charge may with the prior permission of the Deputy Superintendent of Police proceed to conduct a preliminary enquiry within fourteen days to ascertain if there exists a prima facie case and proceed with the investigation when there exists one. It noted that Section 173(4) provides that the complainant may file an application to the Magistrate to register an FIR if the Superintendent of Police does not investigate the case or direct a subordinate police officer to investigate, in accordance with the BNSS

The court was hearing bank's plea wherein the Vatakara police had registered an FIR against the Branch Manager of Bank of Maharashtra, Vatakara for allegedly replacing 26,244.20 grams of gold jewels worth Rs. 17,20,35,717 which was pledged by customers with counterfeit gold jewels. The police seized some gold from the Thrippur and Kanagayam Branch of DBS Bank India on the ground that these are stolen goods and is a portion of the gold misappropriated by the Manager of Vatakra Branch of Bank of Maharashtra. The gold was deposited in the DBS Bank for obtaining loan.

DBS bank tried to get an FIR registered in the Tiruppur police station against the 56 customers who pledged these gold and availed the loan. The bank alleged that the customers committed offences of criminal conspiracy and cheating. However, the police did not register FIR and asked them to approach Vatakara police for registering the case. The Bank approached the Vatakara police station for registering the FIR. However, there was no response. The Bank then filed an application before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara for registering the FIR. However, the Magistrate returned the application for lack of jurisdiction. The Magistrate observed that the Tamil Nadu police have the jurisdiction. Against this order, the Bank approached the High Court.

The Court observed that the loan amount sanctioned by the DNS Bank was put in bank accounts in Vatakara. The gold seized from the bank is with the Vatakara police station. The Court observed that since a part of the offence is committed in the Vatakara jurisdiction, Vatakara Magistrate Court has jurisdiction to enquire into it as per Section 198(b) of BNSS.

The Court further observed that as per Section 200 of BNSS, when an offence is an offence by relation to another offence, it can be enquired or tried upon any court within whose local jurisdiction either act was done. The Court held that the pledginf of gold in the DNB Bank was an offence because it was the stolen property in the FIR registered in Vatakara police station.

The Court set aside the order of Magistrate and directed the Magistrate to consider the matter afresh.

Case No: WP (Crl.) 1159 of 2024

Case Title: DBS Bank India Ltd v The State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 784

Click Here To Read/ Download Order