Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 31562
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J
SOYA ANTONY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 4778 OF 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON, SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI, SHRI.SAJEEV.T.P.
For the Respondents: SRI.E.C.BINEESH-SR.PP
Zero FIRs must be registered by police regardless of jurisdiction, as established by Section 173 of BNSS.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 173 - Zero FIR - Statutory recognition of Zero FIR introduced, ensuring victims can file complaints irrespective of jurisdiction, thus obligating police to register FIRs when cognizable offences are established regardless of complaint origin. (Paras 3-4)
(B) Complaint handling - Rejection of an unsigned email complaint from abroad cannot be justified when a cognizable offence is indicated. (Paras 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, residing in Australia, filed a complaint via email against her husband, which was refused by local police due to jurisdiction and the format.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the police to accept the complaint based on the statutory provisions of BNSS.
Issues: The court addressed the legality of rejecting a complaint based on unsigned format and jurisdictional grounds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Zero FIR provision mandates police action on cognizable offences regardless of the complaint's origin.
Result: Complaint to be acted upon as per BNSS provisions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner filed a complaint from abroad. (Para 1) |
| 2. court's direction on accepting the complaint. (Para 2 , 3) |
O R D E R
The petitioner is an Indian citizen, now residing at Australia. She filed a complaint against her husband through e- mail to the Director General of Police, Kerala. It appears that the Director General of Police, Kerala forwarded the complaint to the jurisdictional police station i.e., Muttom police station. Thereafter, Muttom police refused to take action on the complaint stating that an unsigned complaint sent through e- mail cannot be accepted and that since the petitioner is residing at Australia, her personal presence cannot be secured. The communication given by the Muttom Police is produced as Annexure A9. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Annexure A9.
2. I have heard Sri.T.B.Shajimon, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.E.C.Bineesh, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
3. The implementation of Section 173 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNSS '), marks a significant shift in how the police handles information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. Now, Zero FIR has been given statutory recognition by incorporating it in of , which deals with the registration of FIR in cognizable cases. Zero FIR has been introduced with the primary purpose of ensuring that victims can file complaints regardless of jurisdiction. Therefore, the police cannot refuse to register an FIR if a cognizable offence is made out in the complaint, even if the complaint is forwarded from a foreign country. In these circumstances, the rejection of Annexure A7 complaint made by the petitioner on the ground that it was unsigned and sent through e-mail from Australia cannot be justified.
Annexure A7 complaint was given in the year 2020. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to give a fresh complaint. Hence, this Crl.M.C.is disposed of directing the respondent No.6 to act upon the complaint, if any, given by the petitioner following the procedure contemplated in BNSS , especially Section 173 of .
