Eligibility to Lodge FIR: Legal Provisions and Public Rights

Most people assume that filing an FIR – a First Information Report – is the exclusive right of the person who was directly wronged. But that’s a common misconception. Indian criminal law takes a far broader view. The statutory framework under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) on July 1, 2024 – makes it clear that virtually any person with knowledge of a cognizable offence can set the criminal justice machinery in motion. Understanding who can lodge an FIR, and under what conditions, is foundational to exercising your rights as a citizen.

What is an FIR and where does it fit in the law? 🔗

The term “First Information Report” is not formally defined anywhere in the BNSS, but the concept is embodied in Section 173 of the Sanhita, which corresponds to the old Section 154 of the CrPC. Section 173 mandates the recording of information upon receipt of knowledge about the commission of a cognizable offence by the police. It is, essentially, the first piece of information that triggers a formal police investigation. Cognizable offences are serious crimes – murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping – where the police can arrest without a warrant and begin investigating without a court’s prior order. A non-cognizable offence, by contrast, requires a Magistrate’s direction before the police can act.

The FIR is not a confession, a charge sheet, or a final conclusion. It is simply the starting point. Investigation begins with the filing of the FIR and ends with the submission of the police report or charge sheet to the concerned Magistrate. Everything that follows – the arrest, the evidence collection, the trial – flows from this one document.

Who can legally lodge an FIR? 🔗

This is where the law is deliberately inclusive. Every citizen has a right to set the machinery of criminal law in motion. An FIR need not be lodged by the victim or by an eyewitness alone. The law does not restrict reporting to those who were personally harmed or who physically witnessed the offence. What matters is that the person has information about the commission of a cognizable offence.

The victim 🔗

The most natural and common informant is the victim themselves – the person who directly suffered the offence. They have both the right and, often, the clearest account of what occurred. When a victim lodges an FIR, the police are duty-bound to register it immediately if the information discloses a cognizable offence.

Eyewitnesses and third parties 🔗

Anyone who witnessed a crime can file an FIR. But even a person who did not witness it firsthand can do so. It is not necessary that the informant have personal knowledge of the incident. In Hallu & Ors. v. State of M.P. (AIR 1974 SC), the Supreme Court interpreted Section 154 CrPC broadly, holding that the section speaks of “information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence” – language wide enough to include anyone who has come to know of the crime through any means. This interpretation has been consistently followed since.

Police officers themselves 🔗

A police officer who independently comes to know about the commission of a cognizable offence can register an FIR on their own initiative – this is called a suo motu FIR. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (2009), the Supreme Court held that a police officer can register an FIR based on information received from a reliable source, even without personal knowledge of the incident, because the purpose of an FIR is to set the criminal justice system in motion, and this purpose would be defeated if the police were required to conduct a preliminary investigation before registering an FIR.

Anonymous informants 🔗

Even an anonymous communication – a letter or a phone tip – can be treated as an FIR if it discloses a cognizable offence. Even an anonymous letter sent reporting a cognizable offence may be treated as an FIR. The identity of the informant is not a prerequisite. What counts is whether the information, on its face, discloses a cognizable offence.

Cases where public reporting is specifically mandated by law 🔗

While reporting a crime is a general right available to all, in certain situations the law converts this right into a legal duty. Two provisions are particularly important here.

Section 38 of BNSS – duty of every person (formerly Section 39 CrPC) 🔗

This provision places an obligation on every person to give information to the nearest police officer or Magistrate about the commission of certain specified offences. These are not just any crimes – they include offences against the State, offences affecting public tranquility, and serious crimes like murder, dacoity, and robbery. The idea is that community members cannot remain passive bystanders when grave offences are committed. This section imposes a legal obligation on every individual to inform the police about any crime they become aware of. The information must be given to a police officer, either directly or through another person.

Section 47 of BNSS – duty of village officers (formerly Section 40 CrPC) 🔗

This provision creates a specific and heightened duty for those in positions of local administrative authority. Every officer employed in connection with the affairs of a village and every person residing in a village shall forthwith communicate to the nearest Magistrate or to the officer in charge of the nearest police station any information which he may possess regarding matters such as: the presence of notorious receivers of stolen property in the village, the movement of known robbers or proclaimed offenders through the village, or the commission of – or intention to commit – any non-bailable offence nearby. Village-level officials, by virtue of their proximity to the community, are expected to be active participants in crime prevention and reporting.

What happens when the police refuse to register an FIR? 🔗

An important aspect of the eligibility framework is understanding what recourse you have if your right to lodge an FIR is denied. Reliability, genuineness, and credibility of the information are not conditions precedent for registering a case under Section 154 of the CrPC. This means a police officer cannot turn away a complainant simply because the story sounds implausible. If the information discloses a cognizable offence, registration is mandatory.

If the officer in charge still refuses, the BNSS provides a clear escalation path. First, under Section 173(4) BNSS (formerly Section 154(3) CrPC), the aggrieved person can send a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police (SP), who, if satisfied that a cognizable offence is disclosed, must either investigate the matter personally or direct a subordinate to do so. Only after this step is exhausted can the complainant approach a Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS (formerly Section 156(3) CrPC). The Supreme Court has clarified that the complainant must exhaust the remedy of approaching the Superintendent of Police upon refusal before moving an application before the Magistrate. If neither avenue succeeds, the person may also file a complaint directly before the Magistrate under Section 223 BNSS, or approach the High Court under its inherent powers.

Modernisation under the BNSS: e-FIR and Zero FIR 🔗

The BNSS has expanded both the manner and the geography of FIR filing in ways that directly affect who can practically exercise the right to report.

Zero FIR 🔗

Under the old CrPC, police stations often refused to register FIRs if the offence occurred outside their territorial jurisdiction, forcing victims to travel to the “correct” station – sometimes across districts. Section 173 of the BNSS has now legally codified the Zero FIR concept. Police officers can no longer refuse to register an FIR citing jurisdictional issues. The officer-in-charge is legally bound to register the FIR regardless of jurisdictional concerns and then transfer the case to the appropriate police station. This is a significant step forward for victims who are in distress and cannot travel to a specific station.

Electronic FIR (e-FIR) 🔗

Section 173(1)(ii) of the BNSS now allows an informant to report a cognizable offence electronically – via online portals or other digital means – without having to physically visit the police station. The informant must sign the e-FIR within three days of submission. This is particularly helpful in cases of cybercrime, where the victim may not know in which jurisdiction the offence occurred, or for women reporting crimes from a safe location without confronting the alleged perpetrator in a public space.

Special provisions for offences against women 🔗

Where the informant is a woman and the FIR concerns an offence against her under Sections 64-79 or 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) – covering rape and sexual assault – the statement must be recorded by a female police officer. In cases involving offences against women, the law provides that the FIR must be recorded by a female officer if the informant is a woman. This provision is designed to reduce the social and psychological barriers that often prevent women from coming forward to report sexual crimes.

The role of delay in lodging an FIR 🔗

While anyone can lodge an FIR, the timing matters in law. Courts have consistently held that unjustified or unexplained delays in lodging an FIR are to be viewed with circumspection, as they may indicate afterthoughts or fabricated accounts. This does not mean a delayed FIR is automatically discarded – courts will assess whether the delay is satisfactorily explained by the circumstances, such as the victim’s medical condition, fear of the accused, or distance from the police station. The BNSS, with its e-FIR mechanism and procedural timelines, aims to reduce the scope for such delays going forward.

Why this matters: the democratic character of FIR reporting 🔗

The law’s inclusive approach to who can lodge an FIR reflects a deeper constitutional value – that every member of society has a stake in the administration of criminal justice. Crime is not a purely private matter between offender and victim. It is an offence against public order, and the state relies on public participation to ensure offences are brought to light. By allowing third parties, anonymous informants, and even police officers to initiate FIRs, and by placing specific mandatory duties on certain individuals, the law creates a collaborative framework where the community itself becomes a partner in law enforcement. The BNSS framework emphasises that the democratic principle that any individual may initiate the criminal justice machinery by reporting a cognizable offence is central to the rule of law.

What do you think? Given that even an anonymous communication can trigger an FIR, how do you think the law should balance the right to report crimes freely against the risk of false or frivolous complaints being misused to harass individuals? And with the introduction of e-FIR under the BNSS, do you think digital reporting will meaningfully improve access to justice for victims in remote or underserved areas?

References

1. https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-2023
2. https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/FIR-UNDER-BNSS-2023-TOWARDS-TRANSPARENCY-TECHNOLOGY-AND-TIMELINESS.pdf
3. https://blog.ipleaders.in/all-you-need-to-know-about-section-154-of-crpc/
4. https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/to-the-point/bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sahita-&-code-of-criminal-procedure/first-information-report-fir
5. https://blog.ipleaders.in/fir-registration-under-bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sahita/
6. https://www.apnilaw.com/crpc/section-39-crpc-publics-duty-to-report-certain-offences-indian-criminal-procedure-code/
7. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91117739/
8. https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/2023-03/AdvisoryCompulsoryRegistrationFIRs_141015_3%5B1%5D%5B1%5D.pdf
9. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=41a63de2-e0f5-429a-ba43-dba745dd8907
10. https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/editorial/new-provisions-for-police-officers
11. https://www.lawtechcorp.com/blog/difference-between-fir-registration-under-s-154-crpc-173-bnss-supreme-court/