Police not registering your complaint? FIR, Zero FIR and e-FIR

Under Section 173(1) of the BNSS, information about a cognizable offence can be given to the officer in charge of a police station "irrespective of the area where the offence is committed". It can be given orally, in which case it is written down, read back to the informant and signed, or by electronic communication. In Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2013), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that registering an FIR is mandatory when the information discloses a cognizable offence. In Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025), the Court said this still applies under Section 173(1), subject to the new preliminary enquiry in Section 173(3). Under Section 173(2), a copy of the recorded information must be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant or the victim.

Section 173(3) is new. For offences punishable with three years or more but less than seven years, the officer can, with prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), hold a preliminary enquiry to see whether there is a prima facie case. This has to be finished within 14 days. In Imran Pratapgadhi, the Supreme Court described this as a discretion. It said that if a prima facie case is found, the FIR should be registered, and if not, the informant should be told promptly so they can use the remedy in Section 173(4). In Ashish Dave v. State of Rajasthan (2026), the Court described the preliminary enquiry as a safeguard against FIRs being registered mechanically on vague allegations.

If the station refuses to record the information, Section 173(4) lets the person send the substance of it, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police (SP) concerned. If the SP is satisfied that it discloses a cognizable offence, the SP can investigate or direct a subordinate officer to investigate. If that doesn't happen, the person can apply to a Magistrate under Section 175(3). That application has to be supported by an affidavit. The Magistrate can make any inquiry they think necessary and must consider the police officer's submission before ordering an investigation. In Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra (2025), the Supreme Court said that applying to the SP first is now mandatory. It also repeated that a Magistrate is not meant to act merely as a "post office". There are extra conditions when the complaint is against a public servant for acts in their official duties (Sections 175(4) and 223(2)).

For non-cognizable offences, Section 174 says the officer enters the substance of the information in a book kept for this purpose and refers the informant to the Magistrate. Police cannot investigate a non-cognizable case without a Magistrate's order. If a case involves both kinds of offence, it is treated as cognizable. Separately, a complaint can be made directly to a Magistrate (Sections 210 and 223). The Magistrate examines the complainant and witnesses on oath, and can't take cognizance without first giving the accused a chance to be heard.

1. Any police station. Information about a cognizable offence can be given at any station, whatever the area. The officer in charge records it.
2. The state police's online portal or app, for online complaints and e-FIR services where the state offers them (see the state notes).
3. cybercrime.gov.in (opens in new tab) or helpline 1930, for cyber crime and online financial fraud.
4. The Superintendent of Police, in writing by post under Section 173(4), if a station refuses.
5. The Judicial Magistrate with jurisdiction, through an application under Section 175(3) or a complaint under Section 223.
6. The State or District Police Complaints Authority, where the state has one, for complaints of misconduct by police officers (see the state notes).
7. Legal Services Authority. Free legal aid for eligible people, including through the NALSA helpline 15100.