‘Transferring case to another State reflected mechanical approach’; Delhi HC directs registration of regular FIR instead of Zero FIR as offence occurred within jurisdiction

Delhi High Court: In a petition seeking to direct Respondents 2 and 3 to restore the investigation of the registered FIR, by passing the appropriate action for illegal transfer of the case to Respondent 4, Sanjeev Narula, J.*, stated that the act of transferring the case to another state, when an offence also clearly occurred within its own jurisdiction, reflected a mechanical approach, which undermined the gravity of the petitioner’s allegations.

The Court stated that the registration of a Zero FIR instead of a regular FIR, not only delayed the investigative process, but potentially compromised the integrity of the evidence collection and investigation. Thus, the Court directed Respondents 2 and 3 to register a regular FIR, instead of Zero FIR and conduct investigation.

Background

The petitioner filed a complaint dated 24-8-2023, alleging that ‘A’ had forcefully established physical relations with her under the false promise of marriage. Based on this complaint, Zero FIR under Sections 376²/506³/509⁴ of the Penal Code, 1860 was registered at P.S. Adarsh Nagar, District Northwest, Delhi. During investigation, the petitioner’s statements under Sections 161⁵ and 164⁶ of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) were recorded, and she also underwent a medical examination.

Based on petitioner’s statement, investigation was transferred to Commission Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. Upon receipt of the FIR, a fresh was registered at Noida, Uttar Pradesh. In connection with the investigation and for recording the petitioner’s statement, the IO made several attempts to contact her on her mobile number, however, she did not appear for further investigation. The petitioner communicated her unwillingness to give a statement to the U.P. Police via WhatsApp.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that once the FIR was registered, there was no justification for transferring the investigation, especially when the FIR disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence within the territorial jurisdiction of Adarsh Nagar.

Analysis, Law, and Decision

The Court stated that before addressing the main issue, it was necessary to clarify the concept of a ‘Zero FIR’. As per Section 154 of the CrPC, when any information pertaining to a cognizable offence was received, it was mandatory for the police to register a FIR. However, if the crime had occurred outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Police Station receiving the complaint, then a Zero FIR must be registered and subsequently transferred to the competent Police Station which had territorial jurisdiction over the offence.

Thus, the Court stated that when a cognizable offence was disclosed, the location of the crime becomes irrelevant for the purpose of registration, and it was incumbent on the police to promptly transfer the complaint for appropriate investigation.

The Court stated that in the present case, a careful examination of the material placed on record revealed that one of the incidents of alleged forced sexual assault occurred at the petitioner’s residence situated in Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. This fact alone was significant, as it conferred territorial jurisdiction upon Adarsh Nagar to entertain the complaint and register a regular FIR. The Court stated that in the present case, rather than exercising its jurisdiction, police station of Adarsh Nagar proceeded to register a Zero FIR and transferred the matter to the police in Noida, U.P. Such action indicated a failure on part of the police authorities concerned to adhere to their statutory responsibility as enshrined under Section 154 of the CrPC.

The Court stated that the act of transferring the case to another state, when an offence also clearly occurred within its own jurisdiction, reflected a mechanical approach, which undermined the gravity of the petitioner’s allegations. In matters involving allegations of sexual assault, prompt and jurisdictionally appropriate police action was not merely a procedural formality, but a foundational requirement for securing effective investigation and safeguarding the complainant’s rights.

The Court stated that the registration of a Zero FIR instead of a regular FIR in this context not only delayed the investigative process but potentially compromised the integrity of the evidence collection and investigation. The lapse in promptly recording a regular FIR could have led to the loss of material evidence. Such procedural infirmities carry the risk of weakening the prosecution’s case.

Thus, the Court directed Respondents 2 and 3 to register a regular FIR, instead of Zero FIR and conduct investigation. Consequently, the Court directed Respondent 4 to hand over all the documents related to the FIR to Respondents 2 and 3.

[X v. State (NCT of Delhi), W.P.(CRL) 2949 of 2023, decided on 2-5-2025]

*Judgment authored by- Justice Sanjeev Narula

---

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For the Petitioner: Prashant Manchanda, Mohit Saroha, Dimpy Chhilar, Angad Singh, Arun Kanwa and Baibhav, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC with Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate; SI Dipika, P.S. Adarsh Nagar; Anil Mittal, Shaurya Mittal and Atul Chauhan, Advocates.

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE

Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  HERE