DELHI HIGH COURT: 156(3) CRPC APPLICATION CAN’T OVERRIDE ZERO FIR JURISDICTION

FACT OF THE CASE

The matter arose after the petitioner’s spouse sustained injuries in late 2023 and later passed away while undergoing treatment in Delhi hospitals. The petitioner alleged that certain individuals brought her husband to Delhi under suspicious circumstances, threatened her against filing formal complaints, and falsely claimed it was an accidental fall. Despite her attempts to lodge a complaint with the local police and later with higher authorities, no FIR was promptly registered. This led her to approach the courts, where directions were issued to the Delhi Police to register an FIR within 24 hours and investigate in accordance with law. Although an FIR was registered, it was treated as a “Zero FIR” and transferred to the Rajasthan police, as the incident allegedly occurred within their territorial jurisdiction.

ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT

The central issue was whether the police had complied with the Court’s earlier order directing registration of an FIR in Delhi, or whether transferring the FIR to another state amounted to non-compliance and violation of the petitioner’s rights.

EXPLANATION OF COMPLEX TERMS

Section 156(3) CrPC: Provision empowering a Magistrate to direct police to register and investigate a case.
Section 528 BNSS: The provision under the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, allowing applications concerning transfer and compliance of proceedings.
Zero FIR: A mechanism allowing any police station to register an FIR regardless of jurisdiction, after which the case is transferred to the appropriate station.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS

The petitioner argued that the Court’s earlier order was not followed in its true spirit. Instead of a regular FIR in Delhi, the police deliberately registered a Zero FIR and transferred it to Rajasthan, allegedly to shield the accused and derail investigation. She maintained that the injury, hospitalization, treatment, post-mortem, and death all occurred in Delhi, placing jurisdiction squarely with Delhi Police. She also alleged collusion between the suspects and the investigating agency, stressing that crucial evidence like call records and CCTV footage was lost due to the delay and transfer.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS

The State contended that the Court’s directions were fully complied with, as an FIR was indeed registered in Delhi within the stipulated time. It was transferred to Rajasthan only after preliminary inquiry revealed that the incident took place in Bhiwadi, outside Delhi’s jurisdiction. The police highlighted that they had acted in good faith, followed Ministry of Home Affairs guidelines on Zero FIR, and duly coordinated with Rajasthan authorities during investigation and post-mortem formalities.

RELEVANT CASE LAW & LAW DISCUSSION

The Court referred to established principles surrounding Zero FIR and jurisdiction, emphasizing that registration followed by transfer to the competent police station is legally permissible. The doctrine of territorial jurisdiction under criminal procedure mandates that investigation be conducted by the police where the offence is alleged to have occurred. Furthermore, courts have consistently held that allegations of improper investigation must be raised through separate legal remedies rather than compliance applications.

COURT OBSERVATIONS

The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s anguish and the seriousness of her allegations but clarified that its earlier order required only registration of an FIR, which was fulfilled. The subsequent transfer of the FIR to Rajasthan was consistent with settled law and could not be treated as defiance. The Court stressed that while it sympathized with the petitioner’s situation, sympathy could not override statutory procedure.

COURT DIRECTIONS / JUDGMENT

The Court dismissed the petitioner’s application, holding that the requirement of compliance with its earlier order had been satisfied. However, it clarified that the petitioner retained the liberty to pursue appropriate legal remedies if she was dissatisfied with the transfer of the FIR or the manner of investigation. It emphasized that such issues constituted a fresh cause of action and must be pursued independently before the proper forum.

DATE OF DECISION

26.09.2025

CASE NUMBER

W.P.(CRL) 493/2025