Navigating Territorial Jurisdiction in Police Investigations

Imagine a crime that begins in one city and ends in another – a kidnapping that starts in Delhi but concludes in Gurugram, or a fraud scheme where a forged document is made in Mumbai but used to cheat someone in Pune. Who investigates? Which police station takes charge? These are not hypothetical puzzles; they are real procedural challenges that arise routinely in criminal law. Understanding the territorial limits of police power to investigate cognizable offences is essential to understanding how the criminal justice machinery in India actually functions.

What is a cognizable offence? 🔗

Before getting into jurisdiction, it is important to be clear on what a cognizable offence means. As defined under Section 2(g) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 – which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) with effect from July 1, 2024 – a cognizable offence is one where the police can arrest without a warrant and begin investigation immediately, without needing prior permission from a magistrate. Murder, rape, robbery, and kidnapping are classic examples. This automatic power to act is precisely why the question of who gets to act – and over what territory – becomes so critical.

The basic rule: ordinary place of investigation 🔗

The starting point for territorial jurisdiction is the principle that an offence should ordinarily be investigated and tried at the place where it was committed. Under the CrPC, this was established by Section 177, which remains the foundational rule even under the BNSS framework. Every police station in India is assigned specific geographical boundaries, demarcated by state governments through official notifications. The officer in charge of that station is empowered to investigate cognizable offences that occur within those limits. This keeps the investigation grounded in the most relevant geography – where evidence is located, witnesses reside, and the sequence of events unfolded.

Under the CrPC, Section 156(1) empowered officers in charge of police stations to investigate any cognizable case that a court with jurisdiction over their local area could try. The corresponding provision under BNSS is Section 175, which preserves this investigative power while introducing new procedural safeguards.

When crimes cross boundaries: exceptions to the rule 🔗

Indian law has always recognised that strict adherence to territorial lines can impede justice, especially when offences span multiple jurisdictions. Several provisions address this directly.

Offences committed in multiple jurisdictions 🔗

Section 178 of the CrPC (mirrored in the BNSS framework) addresses situations where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another. In such cases, the offence may be investigated by the police – and ultimately tried by a court – having jurisdiction over any of those areas. In Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh (2016), the court highlighted that Chapter XIII of the CrPC does not impose an absolute restriction on investigating crimes committed outside a given territory, as long as the offence has a connection to that area through Sections 177 to 188.

Offences connected by relation to another act 🔗

Section 179 of the CrPC deals with situations where one offence is directly connected to another – for instance, where a forged document is prepared in one city and used to commit cheating in another. In such connected-offence scenarios, the police of either jurisdiction where any part of the criminal act took place can investigate the matter. This prevents gaps where no police station claims responsibility simply because the crime’s components were distributed across districts.

Offences with uncertain place of commission 🔗

Section 180 of the CrPC covers scenarios where it is genuinely unclear in which jurisdiction an offence was committed, or where the offence consisted of several acts performed across different local areas. Here again, the investigation may be conducted by officers having jurisdiction over any of those areas, preventing procedural deadlock caused by jurisdictional ambiguity.

The Zero FIR: jurisdiction-free complaint registration 🔗

One of the most significant practical developments in this area is the Zero FIR system. Historically, police stations frequently refused to register First Information Reports (FIRs) on the ground that the crime occurred outside their jurisdiction – a practice that caused delays, loss of evidence, and denial of justice to victims. The Supreme Court’s direction in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) was a turning point: the court held that registration of an FIR is mandatory when the information received discloses a cognizable offence, and that no preliminary inquiry is ordinarily permissible before such registration.

The concept of Zero FIR emerged as a direct response to the jurisdictional refusal problem. A Zero FIR is registered at any police station – regardless of where the offence occurred – without a regular serial number. It is then forwarded to the police station that has territorial jurisdiction over the matter for investigation. Although Zero FIR was not explicitly recognised under the CrPC, it gained statutory backing through Section 173(1) of the BNSS, 2023, which now expressly states that information about a cognizable offence may be given to any police station irrespective of the area where the offence was committed. This single phrase, inserted into the text of the law, ended years of procedural ambiguity.

BNSS Section 173(3): a new layer – the preliminary inquiry 🔗

The BNSS introduced a significant procedural change that intersects with territorial jurisdiction: Section 173(3) permits a police officer to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR for cognizable offences punishable by imprisonment of three years or more but less than seven years. This is a deliberate departure from the Lalita Kumari rule of mandatory FIR registration. However, such an inquiry requires prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) and must be completed within 14 days.

This provision was clarified by the Supreme Court in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025). The court held that Section 173(3) operates as a statutory exception to mandatory FIR registration, particularly in cases involving speech, writing, or artistic expression, where the risk of a chilling effect on fundamental rights under Article 19 must be weighed. For offences below three years or above seven years of imprisonment, the Lalita Kumari principle of mandatory registration continues to apply.

Key Supreme Court rulings on police investigative jurisdiction 🔗

Several Supreme Court decisions have shaped how territorial limits on police investigation are understood and applied.

Investigation powers independent of magistrate jurisdiction 🔗

One foundational ruling clarified that a police officer’s power to investigate a cognizable offence is independent of the magistrate’s jurisdictional power to try the case. This means that even if a magistrate in a particular district has no power to conduct a trial for an offence, the police station in that district may still have legitimate authority to investigate it – particularly where the offence has cross-territorial elements. The court emphasised that there is no absolute restriction on investigation, inquiry, or trial of crimes committed outside a given region, as long as the jurisdictional link through the statutory provisions is established.

Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra (2025) 🔗

In this recent ruling, the Supreme Court addressed the power of magistrates to direct police investigation under what was Section 156(3) CrPC – now Section 175(3) of the BNSS. The court held that a magistrate must apply judicial mind meaningfully before issuing directions to the police to register an FIR and investigate. The order cannot be mechanical. Crucially, the magistrate’s jurisdiction to issue such a direction is itself confined to cognizable offences committed within their territorial area – they cannot simply direct any police station across the country to investigate. This ruling also reinforced that under the BNSS, the magistrate must now consider submissions made by the concerned police officer before passing an order, adding a layer of procedural accountability that was absent under the old CrPC regime.

Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 🔗

Though decided under the CrPC, this constitutional bench ruling remains the backbone of FIR registration law in India. The Supreme Court laid down that if information received by a police officer discloses a cognizable offence, registration of the FIR is mandatory and no preliminary inquiry may be conducted in the ordinary course. The decision also affirmed that police cannot refuse to register an FIR citing jurisdictional grounds – a victim has the right to report at any station, which aligns directly with the Zero FIR concept that followed.

What happens after an out-of-jurisdiction FIR is registered? 🔗

Once a Zero FIR is registered at a police station that does not have territorial jurisdiction, the receiving station must forward it to the station that does have jurisdiction – promptly, and along with any preliminary information or material collected. The jurisdictional station then takes over the investigation. If the police entirely refuse to register an FIR, the aggrieved person may first approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) of the BNSS, and if that too fails, approach the magistrate under Section 175(3) for a direction to register and investigate.

It is worth noting that an investigation proceeding from an out-of-jurisdiction FIR – or one transferred between stations – does not invalidate the eventual outcome. Whether it leads to conviction or acquittal, the case’s outcome is unaffected by which officer leads the investigation, as long as the procedural requirements under the law have been met. Jurisdiction is a procedural safeguard, not an iron gate that shuts out justice.

Metropolitan areas and extended investigation powers 🔗

In metropolitan areas with several police stations, the law provides additional flexibility. Under Section 166A of the CrPC, police officers within a metropolitan area can investigate offences committed anywhere within that area without requiring specific permissions from another police station. The BNSS preserves this spirit through Section 178, which allows jurisdiction flexibility in investigation, preventing delays caused by territorial disputes in urban settings where the boundaries between police station areas are particularly fluid.

The bigger picture: jurisdiction as a tool, not a barrier 🔗

The evolution of territorial jurisdiction rules in Indian criminal procedure reflects a consistent judicial and legislative philosophy: jurisdiction is a tool for organising investigations efficiently, not a barrier that denies victims access to justice. From the foundational rule of investigation at the place of offence, to multi-jurisdiction flexibility under Sections 178-180, to the statutory Zero FIR under BNSS Section 173(1), the framework has progressively moved toward a victim-centric approach. The Supreme Court has consistently reinforced this by holding that technical jurisdictional defects do not vitiate an investigation or its outcomes, so long as the substantive requirements of a fair investigation are met.

For law students, practitioners, and anyone navigating the criminal justice system, understanding these rules is not an academic exercise – it is the difference between knowing which door to knock on when a crime is committed, and being turned away at the threshold on a technicality.

What do you think? With the BNSS now giving statutory backing to Zero FIR, do you think jurisdictional refusals by police will become a thing of the past – or will implementation gaps persist on the ground? And given that Section 173(3) allows a 14-day preliminary inquiry window for certain offences, does this introduce room for discretionary delay that could undermine the Lalita Kumari mandate of prompt FIR registration?

References

1. https://lawrato.com/indian-kanoon/criminal-law/what-is-a-cognizable-and-non-cognizable-offence-in-india-612
2. https://blog.ipleaders.in/section-1563-crpc/
3. https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/lalita-kumari-vs-state-of-up-ors-2014-guidelines-relating-to-registration-of-fir-16402.asp
4. https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/FIR-UNDER-BNSS-2023-TOWARDS-TRANSPARENCY-TECHNOLOGY-AND-TIMELINESS.pdf
5. https://www.livelaw.in/articles/supreme-court-judgment-imran-pratapgadhi-vs-state-of-gujarat-explains-preliminary-inquiry-section-173-bnss-287964
6. https://ksandk.com/corporate/constitutional-lens-preliminary-enquiry-bnss/
7. https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/section-156-3-of-crpc-v-section-175-3-of-bnss
8. https://www.nujssacj.com/post/balancing-act-the-discrepancy-between-section-173-3-bnss-and-thesupreme-court-ruling-in-lalita-kum
9. https://www.barandbench.com/law-firms/view-point/overview-criminal-investigations-trials-bnss-bns-bsa-part-i
10. https://medium.com/@aasthathakker/from-crpc-to-bnss-6ab22baaad7a