The Delhi High Court has strongly criticized both the Delhi and Uttar Pradesh Police for neglecting their legal duty to register an FIR concerning the suspicious death of a 20-year-old man from Delhi, whose body was later found in Greater Noida. The case has raised serious concerns over inter-jurisdictional responsibility and the correct application of Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik SurakshaSanhita (BNSS), 2023.
The youth went missing in December 2024. His family alleged that despite repeated efforts, neither police force registered an FIR. Delhi Police claimed the missing report did not disclose any cognizable offence, while the UP Police insisted that an FIR could not be filed until inquest proceedings were completed.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Upholds ITBP Medical Fitness Standards: No Parity With Other Forces
“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.”
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani referred to the newly introduced Section 173 of BNSS, which replaced Section 154 of the CrPC, noting that the law now explicitly removes jurisdiction as a barrier to registering an FIR. The phrase “irrespective of the area where the offence is committed” was highlighted as crucial in the Court’s reasoning.
The Court emphasized that the moment any officer receives credible information about a cognizable offence, an FIR must be registered, even if the precise nature of the offence is unclear at the time. Referring to the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2014), the judge reiterated that FIR registration is mandatory.
“It can never be countenanced, that based on what a complainant or an aggrieved person discloses to a police officer, the police officer may refuse to register an FIR saying that until he is sure which exact cognizable offence is disclosed, he would not register an FIR at all.”
The Court found that the Delhi Police had enough material before them to register an FIR under Section 103 BNSS (murder), regardless of the body being recovered in Greater Noida. The body was found locked inside a car with a carbon monoxide cylinder, syringes, and a diary entry suggesting suicidal or homicidal possibilities.
Read Also:- Delhi HC Reserves Verdict on Parents’ Petition Against DPS Dwarka Over Fee Hike and Student Expulsions
Given that the body was discovered in UP, the Court ruled that Delhi Police should have registered a Zero FIR and transferred the investigation to UP Police. A Zero FIR allows registration of a case at any police station and its transfer to the appropriate jurisdiction later.
The Court also criticized the UP Police for not applying basic discretion. Despite the presence of alarming evidence, they failed to recognize the possibility of a cognizable offence. The Court stressed that a preliminary assessment is all that’s needed at this stage—not a conclusive diagnosis of the offence.
“An FIR is not an encyclopaedia of all information relating to a case and offences and provisions of the penal law can both be added and deleted during the course of investigation.”
The Court rejected the argument that the conclusion of inquest proceedings under Section 194 BNSS was a prerequisite for registering an FIR, stating both are distinct processes.
As a result, the Delhi Police has been ordered to immediately file a Zero FIR and forward all documents to the UP Police within a week. The UP Police must re-register the FIR and begin proper investigation without delay.
Case title: Khushi Sharma v. Union Of India And Others
Case no.: W.P.(CRL) 259/2025
