Police Must Register Regular FIR And Not Zero FIR If Part Of Alleged Offence Occurred Within Its Jurisdiction | Mechanical Transfer Undermines Rights And Delays Justice : Delhi High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the Delhi Police erred in transferring the investigation of a cognizable offence to Uttar Pradesh when part of the alleged incident occurred within Delhi’s jurisdiction. The Court directed the Delhi Police to register a regular FIR under relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and resume investigation through the appropriate local police station. The Bench further ordered the Noida Police to transfer all documents and materials related to the FIR to the Delhi Police to facilitate a legally compliant and effective investigation.
The matter arose from a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus. The Petitioner alleged that she was subjected to sexual assault and other offences by the accused under the false pretext of marriage. The initial complaint was lodged at Police Station (P.S.) Adarsh Nagar, District North West, Delhi on 24 August 2023.
Following the complaint, a Zero FIR No. 0002/2023 was registered at P.S. Adarsh Nagar under Sections 376, 506, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case was assigned to ASI Ved Prakash for investigation. The Petitioner’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, were recorded, and she underwent a medical examination.
Subsequently, the investigation was transferred to Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, a fresh FIR No. 790/2024 was registered at P.S. Sector-39, Noida, under the same IPC sections and was assigned to SI Rakesh Sharma.
The Investigating Officer (IO) attempted multiple times to contact the Petitioner to record her further statement, but she did not respond. The Petitioner communicated her refusal to cooperate with the U.P. Police via WhatsApp.
The Petitioner contended through her counsel, Mr. Prashant Manchanda, that the alleged offence occurred at her residence in Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. Thus, she argued that P.S. Adarsh Nagar had proper territorial jurisdiction and ought to have completed the investigation instead of transferring it. Reference was made to Section 178(d) Cr.P.C., which allows for investigation in cases where a part of the offence occurs within a given jurisdiction.
On the contrary, Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, Additional Standing Counsel for the State, argued that the initial act of sexual assault occurred in Uttar Pradesh, and the registration of a Zero FIR at Delhi was procedurally appropriate. She added that although the investigation had been transferred back to Delhi temporarily in December 2023, it was again re-transferred to Noida in February 2024 by the DCP of North-West Delhi.
She also stated that the Petitioner’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. did not clearly allege any incident occurring in Delhi. Furthermore, the status report submitted by the Noida Police confirmed that the investigation remained stalled due to the Petitioner’s non-cooperation.
Delhi Police's own status report highlighted that the crime was initially reported as having taken place in Ghaziabad, U.P., thus justifying the Zero FIR and transfer.
Justice Sanjeev Narula clarified the legal concept of a Zero FIR as per Section 154 of Cr.P.C., stating in italics, “when any information pertaining to a cognizable offence is received, it is mandatory for the police to register an FIR”, further citing Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. in support.
The Court explained that “if the crime has 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 has territorial jurisdiction over the offence.”
It was observed that “one of the incidents of alleged forced sexual assault occurred at the Petitioner’s residence situated in Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. This fact alone is significant, as it confers territorial jurisdiction upon P.S. Adarsh Nagar.”
The Court expressed that “rather than exercising its jurisdiction, P.S. Adarsh Nagar proceeded to register a Zero FIR and transferred the matter to the police in Noida, U.P. Such action indicates a failure on part of the concerned police authorities to adhere to their statutory responsibility as enshrined under Section 154 Cr.P.C.”
Further, Justice Narula recorded: “The act of transferring the case to another state, when an offence also clearly occurred within its own jurisdiction, reflects a mechanical approach, which undermines the gravity of the allegations made by the Petitioner.”
The Court added: “In matters involving allegations of sexual assault, prompt and jurisdictionally appropriate police action is not merely a procedural formality but a foundational requirement for securing effective investigation and safeguarding the complainant’s rights.”
It also noted: “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.”
Justice Narula concluded by stating: “Such procedural infirmities carry the risk of weakening the prosecution’s case.”
Accordingly, the Court found merit in the Petitioner’s contention and directed that Respondents No. 2 and 3 register a regular FIR in place of the previously lodged Zero FIR. The Bench stated:
“this Court finds merit in the contentions of the Petitioner, and is inclined to direct the Respondents No. 2 and 3 to register a regular FIR instead of a Zero FIR and conduct investigation.”
The Court further ordered the U.P. Police to hand over all records and evidence. It stated:
“Respondent No. 4 is directed to hand-over the documents related to FIR No. 790/2024… to Respondents No. 2 and 3 for conducting investigation.”
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prashant Manchanda, Mr. Mohit Saroha, Ms. Dimpy Chhilar, Mr. Angad Singh, Mr. Arun Kanwa, and Mr. Baibhav, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate for R-1; Mr. Anil Mittal, Mr. Shaurya Mittal, and Mr. Atul Chauhan, Advocates for R-4.
Case Title: Ms. X v. State of NCT of Delhi and Others
Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 2949/2023
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula
[Read/Download order]
