Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani directed the immediate registration of a 'Zero FIR' under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), following the death of a 20-year-old man under suspicious circumstances. The court held that both the Delhi Police and Uttar Pradesh Police failed in their statutory duties under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and the judicial precedents established by the Supreme Court. The court expressed its "consternation and regret" over the dereliction of duty and directed immediate compliance with the statutory provisions and judicial guidelines.

The matter arose from the death of a 20-year-old man who left his home in Delhi on the morning of 3rd December 2024 to attend college in Noida, Uttar Pradesh. When he did not return home, his mother attempted to contact him without success, making multiple calls to his mobile phone. Concerned, she contacted the Police Control Room at approximately 19:44 hours the same day. Police officers from P.S.: Moti Nagar, New Delhi, visited the residence and advised the family to lodge a formal complaint, which was duly registered as a missing person’s complaint under GD No. 0143A at about 21:15 hours.

Also Read: Supreme Court Acquits Husband In Dowry And Cruelty Case | Says Allegations Were Vague And Bereft Of Specifics | Misuse Of Section 498A Cannot Be A Tool For Harassment

The Delhi Police tracked the mobile phone location of the missing person and located his car near RCI Hostel, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, around 23:30 hours. The deceased was found unresponsive inside the locked vehicle. Witnesses at the scene broke open the car window to retrieve the deceased. A carbon monoxide cylinder was found inside the car, and his face appeared red and swollen with visible red spots on his body. He was rushed to Kailash Hospital, Greater Noida, where he was declared 'brought dead' at approximately 01:00 a.m. on 4th December 2024.

The police also discovered a diary in the deceased's bag, containing a note on the first page stating: "IF YOU WANT TO MEET THIS PERSON, HE IS DEAD". Despite these circumstances, neither the Delhi Police nor the U.P. Police registered an FIR. The U.P. Police recorded the death as an unnatural death under GD No. 002 at 01:56 hours on 4th December 2024.

The petitioner, the deceased's sister, repeatedly approached both police departments on 20th and 23rd December 2024, requesting the registration of an FIR for murder, but was unsuccessful. Frustrated by the inaction, she filed a writ petition under Article 32 before the Supreme Court, which was disposed of with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court. Accordingly, the present writ petition was filed.

The Delhi Police contended that the information provided only pertained to a missing person and did not disclose any cognizable offence. They argued that no complaint alleging foul play was made initially, and hence, no FIR was registered. They further submitted that since the death occurred in Uttar Pradesh, jurisdiction lay with the U.P. Police.

The U.P. Police maintained that they conducted inquest proceedings under Section 194 of the BNSS and awaited the final report before determining whether an FIR should be registered. They submitted that viscera samples were sent for forensic examination, and the final opinion from the Medical Officer In-Charge could not state out the possibility of death due to asphyxia consequent upon carbon monoxide poisoning.

The court stated in italics: "The Legislature wanted to address the mischief of police stations refusing to record information relating to commission of a cognizable offence, on the excuse that the offence complained-of has not been committed within their territorial jurisdiction. This excuse is therefore no longer available."

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, the court noted: "Registration of an FIR is mandatory if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR."

The court rejected the Delhi Police’s claim that no cognizable offence was disclosed, stating: "Based on the information given to them by the petitioner, they visited the petitioner’s residence; they collected CCTV footage; they made inquiries about her brother’s whereabouts; they traced his mobile phone location; and eventually found him dead in his car in circumstances which clearly belie that he had died a natural death."

On the argument that the exact offence could not be identified, the court observed: "This lack of clarity cannot however be justification for not registering an FIR at all." The court stated that even in cases where the precise offence is uncertain, an FIR should be registered based on probable offences.

The U.P. Police’s reliance on the pending inquest proceedings was also dismissed. The court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Amit Kumar v. Union of India, stating: "Inquest under section 194 BNSS and investigation pursuant to an FIR under section 173 BNSS are two independent processes, and one need not await conclusion of the other."

The court concluded: "There was more than ample material available with the U.P. Police to proceed to register an FIR for the offence of murder, straightaway."

The court directed the Delhi Police to forthwith register a 'Zero FIR' under Section 103 BNS and other relevant sections. The court further ordered that all material and evidence collected by the Delhi Police in the course of inquiring into the death must be transferred to the U.P. Police within one week.

Also Read: Delhi High Court Upholds ITBP’s Medical Rejection Over Single Testis | Perfect Health Is A Necessity Not A Preference | Paramilitary Forces Operate In Extreme Conditions

Additionally, the U.P. Police were directed to register or re-register an FIR under Section 103 BNS and other relevant sections concerning the death of the petitioner’s brother without any further delay. The court specifically instructed both police forces to proceed to investigate the matter in accordance with law and without any dereliction.

A copy of the judgment was ordered to be sent to the S.H.O., P.S.: Moti Nagar, New Delhi, and S.H.O., P.S.: Knowledge Park, Uttar Pradesh, for information and compliance.

The petition is disposed-of, with the court recording its consternation and regret at the dereliction of duty shown by the concerned officers of the Delhi Police as well as the U.P. Police.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Jayant K. Sud, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashish Upadhyay, Mr. Kartik Jasra, Mr. Shivam Jasra, Mr. Prannit Stefano, Ms. Shayal Anand, Mr. Sai Manik Sud, Mr. Sahib Kocchar, and Ms. Vidhi Jasra, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rohan Jaitley (CGSC), Mr. Dev Pratap Shahi, Mr. Varun Pratap Singh, and Mr. Yogya Bhatia, Advocates for Union of India; Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC (Criminal) for State with Mr. Mathew M. Philip, Mr. Sangeet Sibou, and Mr. Aniket Kumar Singh, Advocates; Mr. N. Hariharan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Siddharth Yadav and Mr. Sumit Chaudhary, Advocates; Mr. Anil Mittal and Mr. Shaurya Mittal, Advocates

Case Title: Khushi Sharma v. Union of India & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:3834

Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 259/2025

Bench: Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani

[Read/Download order]