You have spent the last hour at the police station. The neighbour who threatened you in front of your wife and pushed you into the wall is sitting outside in his auto, smiling. You walked in expecting an FIR. The constable, after looking at you for a long moment, has slid a small grey diary across the counter. "NC entry kar diya hai, complaint copy le jao," he says. "FIR ki zaroorat nahi."
You walk out with a piece of paper in your hand and a sinking feeling in your stomach. Did you just file a "case"? Will the police actually do anything? Was that the right paper to take? Or has the matter just been quietly buried before it even began?
If you are reading this, something close to that has happened to you. This article tells you, in plain words, what an FIR is, what an NCR is, when each one applies, and exactly what the law expects the police to do — and not do — once the paper is on their counter.
What FIR and NCR Actually Mean in Plain Language
The first thing to know is that "FIR" and "NCR" are not two different forms for the same case. They are two different legal animals, governed by two different sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Which one applies to your case depends on a single question — is the offence "cognizable" or "non-cognizable"?
The Code itself draws this distinction at the very beginning. As the Supreme Court summarised it in Hasib v. State of Bihar (AIR 1972 SC 283), the Code "draws a distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable offences", and the entire structure of police powers — to register, to investigate, to arrest — flows from where your case falls in that classification.
Section 2(1)(g) BNSS (formerly Section 2(c) CrPC) defines a "cognizable offence" as one in which a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or any other law, arrest without a warrant. Section 2(1)(o) BNSS (formerly Section 2(l) CrPC) defines a "non-cognizable offence" as the opposite — one in which a police officer has no authority to arrest without a warrant.
That single test — can the police arrest without a warrant? — drives everything else.
For a cognizable offence, your complaint becomes a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 173 BNSS (formerly Section 154 CrPC). The police are bound to register it, to start investigation immediately, and to forward a report to the Magistrate. They do not need anybody's permission to do any of this.
For a non-cognizable offence, what you get is not an FIR. It is what is colloquially called an "NCR" or "NC entry" — a record made under Section 174 BNSS (formerly Section 155 CrPC). The substance of the information is entered in a separate register kept for non-cognizable cases. The police do not investigate. They cannot arrest the accused. They refer you to the Magistrate, and the Magistrate decides what happens next.
That is the headline. Now let us see how to figure out which one applies to your case, and what your real options are.
How to Tell Whether Your Offence Is Cognizable or Non-Cognizable
Whether an offence is cognizable is, in most cases, decided not by the SHO behind the desk but by the First Schedule of the BNSS. The First Schedule is a long table that lists every offence under the Indian Penal Code (now the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) and several special laws, and tells you in Column 3 whether the offence is "cognizable" or "non-cognizable", and in Column 4 whether it is "bailable" or "non-bailable". When the police register a case, they have to look at the First Schedule first — not their own opinion of how serious the matter is.
The commentary on the Code explains the classification very simply. As the introduction to Schedule I records, the offences picked out as cognizable are "broadly speaking, offences which call for a speedy investigation" — for example, murder and kidnapping. Offences that the State has decided can wait for the Magistrate to issue process before any police action — petty hurt, simple defamation, criminal trespass in many forms — are classified as non-cognizable.
Special laws often answer this question for themselves. The commentary on Section 2 records, for instance, that all offences under the Companies Act, 1956 are cognizable by virtue of Section 624 of that Act, and that all offences under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were made cognizable by Section 10A inserted by Act 36 of 1967. Where a special Act creates a new offence and is silent on whether it is cognizable, the question is determined with reference to Part II of Schedule I — the part that deals with "offences against other laws". The rule of thumb that has emerged from that part of the Schedule, anchored in cases like Avinash v. State of Maharashtra (1983 CrLJ 1833), is that special-law offences punishable with three years' imprisonment or more are usually treated as cognizable, while lighter ones are not.
There is one further complication. If a special Act not only creates the offence but also names a particular police officer who alone may arrest, then only that officer is competent to arrest without warrant — even if the offence would otherwise be cognizable. This is the rule laid down in Delhi Administration v. Prakash (AIR 1967 Del 15), which the commentary records faithfully.
In practical terms — when you walk into the police station, the constable is supposed to look up your offence in the First Schedule (or the relevant special law) and decide. He is not supposed to look at your shirt and decide. The First Schedule is the rulebook, and if the SHO ignores it, you have remedies, which we will come to.
The FIR Route: What Section 173 BNSS Demands
When the offence is cognizable, the law you want to know is Section 173 BNSS — the successor to Section 154 CrPC. This is the section that creates the FIR.
The text of the section is unambiguous. As Section 154(1) CrPC put it, "every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf." Section 173 BNSS preserves this structure word-for-word, with three additions that we will come to in §9.
That language carries four hard duties for the police.
First, they must record. They cannot tell you to "go think about it" or "come back tomorrow". The commentary on the section says it directly: "Once an FIR is laid before a police officer in compliance with the requirements of s. 154 Cr.P.C., the police officer is obliged to enter it in the prescribed form and register it and investigate the case." Read "Section 173 BNSS" for "Section 154 CrPC" in this and every later quotation — the substantive duty is identical.
Second, they must read it over to you and have you sign it. This is your protection — what is recorded must match what you said. If they refuse to read it back, you should refuse to sign and ask for the recording officer's name.
Third, they must give you a free copy. Section 154(2) CrPC and now Section 173(2) BNSS both say the informant is entitled to a copy of the FIR free of cost, then and there. If the SHO asks you for a fee, the law has already been broken.
Fourth, the FIR triggers immediate investigation. The Code does not ask the police whether they think your story is credible at this stage. The commentary, citing the Supreme Court, is blunt: "Genuineness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent to the registration of the case." If your information discloses a cognizable offence, the rest is not optional.
The section is also generous about what counts as "information". The commentary, drawing on Hallu v. State of M.P. (AIR 1974 SC 1936), notes that the section "does not say that, in order to constitute F.I.R., the information must be given by a person having personal knowledge of the incident". An FIR can be lodged on hearsay, by anyone who has heard of the incident. It need not contain every detail, every weapon, every witness's name. The substance, as the commentary puts it, is enough.
In short — for a cognizable offence, the FIR route is your right, not the SHO's favour.
The NCR Route: What Section 174 BNSS Actually Does
When the offence is non-cognizable — petty hurt, criminal intimidation, simple defamation, or many of the lighter offences listed in Part I of Schedule I — the section that applies is Section 174 BNSS, the successor to Section 155 CrPC.
The language of the section, again, is exact. Section 155(1) CrPC said: "When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate." Section 174 BNSS keeps this scheme.
What Section 174 BNSS gives you is therefore:
- A written record. The police must enter the substance of your information in the NC register. This is the "NCR" or "NC entry" you will be handed at the counter.
- A formal referral. The police must "refer the informant to the Magistrate". They are not allowed to keep the matter on their desk and forget about it.
What Section 174 BNSS does not give you is investigation. Sub-section (2) is express on this point — "no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such a case or commit the case for trial". This is not a guideline. The commentary, citing several High Courts, calls it "mandatory". Investigation by the police of a non-cognizable case without a Magistrate's order is contrary to law.
So when the SHO hands you an "NC entry" and says "case ho gaya", the truth is that no case has gone anywhere yet. He has done his bit under Section 174(1) BNSS. The next move is yours, before the Magistrate.
The commentary lays out the two routes you can take when so referred. First, you may simply inform the Magistrate of the offence — this is the informal route. The Magistrate then has the discretion to decide whether to take cognizance under Section 210(1)(a) BNSS (formerly Section 190(1)(a) CrPC). Second — and this is the route most lawyers prefer — you may file a formal complaint, conforming to the definition of "complaint" in Section 2(1)(h) BNSS. The Magistrate then proceeds under Sections 223 to 226 BNSS (formerly Sections 200 to 203 CrPC). He may issue process against the accused under Section 227 BNSS (formerly Section 204 CrPC), or hold an inquiry himself, or direct an investigation by a police officer under Section 225 BNSS (Section 202 CrPC) — for the limited purpose of his preliminary satisfaction whether process should issue.
There is a fourth course open to the Magistrate that is often misunderstood. Sub-section (2) of Section 174 BNSS itself permits the Magistrate to direct the police to investigate the non-cognizable case. The commentary is clear that this judicial power, although routine on paper, is not arbitrary. The Magistrate "should order Police investigation of a non-cognizable offence only after being satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that an offence had been committed", and that the power "was granted in the public interest and not for employing Police agencies for doing the work of private individuals". The complainant, in other words, cannot demand police investigation in an NC case as a matter of right.
If the Magistrate does so order, Section 174(3) BNSS (Section 155(3) CrPC) empowers the police officer to "exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case". The exception — no arrest without warrant — is the heart of the distinction. Even with a Magistrate's blessing, an NC investigation does not give the police the arrest power.
Understanding this is half the battle. An NC entry is not "case khatm". It is the start of a different, slower path — and the path runs through the Magistrate, not the SHO.
What Happens When Your Case Has Both Kinds of Offences
Real disputes rarely fit one box. The same incident often discloses one cognizable offence and several non-cognizable ones, or vice versa. The classic example, taken from the commentary itself, is a quarrel that ends in pushing, abusive language and a slap that draws no blood — the slap is non-cognizable hurt, but the abusive language may amount to criminal intimidation, and the use of force on a public servant or in a public place may amount to a separate cognizable offence. What does the police do then?
The answer is given by Section 174(4) BNSS — the successor to Section 155(4) CrPC. The text is short and decisive: "Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable."
The Supreme Court in Pravin Chandra Mody v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1965 SC 1185) — a case the commentary cites repeatedly — settled the older controversy and held that this is a "legal fiction". The commentary captures the holding in plain words:
"Although a case may comprise of several offences of which some are cognizable but others are not, it would not be open to the police to investigate the cognizable offences only leaving aside the non-cognizable offences… the police had no option but to investigate the whole case and to submit charge sheet in respect of all the offences, provided that the offences have been prima facie committed."
A practical illustration recorded in the commentary: in a case of bigamy under Section 494 IPC — by itself a non-cognizable offence — clubbed with Section 498A IPC (cruelty by husband or his relatives, cognizable) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (cognizable), the Supreme Court held that the police were entitled to register, investigate and file a charge-sheet in the entire case. The legal fiction in Section 174(4) BNSS pulled the bigamy offence into the cognizable basket.
Two consequences follow for the ordinary complainant.
One — if even one cognizable offence is disclosed in your story, you do not get an NC entry for the whole thing. You get an FIR. The police cannot pick out the lighter offences, drop them into the NC register, and walk away from the heavier ones.
Two — if the SHO insists on registering only an NC even though your information clearly discloses a cognizable offence, that registration itself is wrong. The remedies are in §7.
What If the Police Investigated the NC Without the Magistrate's Permission
This is the mirror image of the previous problem. Sometimes the police do the opposite — they investigate a non-cognizable case as if it were cognizable, without first taking the Magistrate's order under Section 174(2) BNSS (Section 155(2) CrPC). This used to happen often under the old Code; it still happens. What is the legal effect?
The starting point is that Section 174(2) BNSS is mandatory. The commentary records this in plain words: "There is no doubt that the provision in s. 155(2) is mandatory." The Gauhati High Court in Md. Malfar Rahaman v. Md. Kajimal Hussain Baruah (AIR 2007 CrLJ 1536 (Gau)) held that an investigation of a non-cognizable offence "without the written order of the Magistrate being contrary to the provisions of s. 155 Cr.P.C., no cognizance of the offence would be taken and if taken it would be set aside". The Karnataka High Court in Siddanagowda v. State (1998 CrLJ 2162 (Kant)) added an important rider — "when the police commenced investigation of non cognizable offence without the order of the Magistrate, the same cannot be validated by an order of the Magistrate passed subsequently". A wrong start cannot be cured by a late blessing.
But the matter does not end there. The Code itself has a safety valve. Section 465 CrPC — the "no order is to be set aside on account of irregularity" provision — combined with the Explanation to Section 2(d) CrPC, draws a distinction based on the stage at which the illegality is raised. Before the trial is concluded, the accused can move the Magistrate or the High Court and have the proceedings quashed for the violation of Section 155(2). After the trial is concluded — and if the accused has suffered no prejudice — the irregularity does not vitiate the conviction. This is the rule the Supreme Court laid down in the well-known case of H.N. Rishbud v. State (AIR 1955 SC 196), and which the Madras High Court applied in Pakkirisamin in re. ((1970) 1 MLJ 488).
There is also the Explanation to Section 2(d) CrPC (carried over to the BNSS): "A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint." The Supreme Court in Keshav Lal Thakur v. State of Bihar ((1996) 11 SCC 557) explained that this Explanation only kicks in where the police initially investigated thinking it was cognizable, but on investigation the case turned out to be non-cognizable. It does not cover the case where the police knew from day one that the offence was non-cognizable and nonetheless investigated without orders. In that situation, as the commentary records, the Magistrate cannot treat the police "report" as a complaint at all, and any cognizance taken on it is liable to be set aside.
The takeaway is two-fold. If the accused — and you, if you are the complainant — can show that the police investigation was outside their statutory authority and that the Magistrate took cognizance on it, you have a strong ground in revision or in the High Court's inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC). But if the trial has run its course and no prejudice flowed from the irregularity, the conviction will not be undone.
When the Police Wrongly Tell You "It's Only an NC"
The most common complaint of all: your story discloses a clear cognizable offence — say, hurt with a weapon, or extortion, or theft of property of substantial value — and the SHO insists on giving you only an NC. He may say "saubhagya hai aapka, FIR mein toh aapko bhi pareshani hogi". He may say nothing and just slide the diary across. Either way, you walk out with the wrong piece of paper.
You have three remedies, and each one is built into the Code itself.
The first is the SP escalation route under Section 173(4) BNSS (Section 154(3) CrPC). If the officer-in-charge of a police station refuses to record an FIR for a cognizable offence, you may communicate the substance of the information by post to the Superintendent of Police of the district. The SP, satisfied that the case discloses a cognizable offence, must either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation. This is the first formal step, and it does not need a lawyer to draft. Our broader walkthrough of the FIR-stage problems cluster sets out the practical drafting points.
The second is the Magistrate route under Section 175(3) BNSS (Section 156(3) CrPC). You may apply to the jurisdictional Magistrate, with a written application setting out the offence and the failure of the police to register or investigate, asking him to direct the police to investigate. Even if the Magistrate cites the wrong sub-section in his order — say, Section 155(3) instead of Section 156(3) — the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Annie Kashy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1998 CrLJ 2565 (AP)) held that a wrong section number does not vitiate the order. The substance is what matters.
The third is the writ route — a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to the High Court for a writ of mandamus directing the police to register and investigate. This is the heaviest remedy and is usually reserved for cases where the SP and the Magistrate have both failed. The commentary records that "if [the police] fails to perform his mandatory duty, the High Court by a writ of mandamus can direct him to register the FIR".
For most readers, the SP route comes first, the Magistrate route comes next, and the writ comes last. The point of mentioning all three is simple — being fobbed off with an "NC" is not the end of the road.
What's New Under the BNSS for 2026 Complainants
If the offence happened on or after 1 July 2024, the BNSS has added several practical features that the old CrPC did not have. The BNSS-CrPC Correspondence Table compiled in this project records each of them.
Zero FIR — codified. Section 173 BNSS now expressly says "irrespective of the area where the offence is committed", which the official commentary on the Correspondence Table calls the codification of "the concept of 'zero FIR'". You can walk into any police station — not only the one with territorial jurisdiction — and have your FIR registered. The station of registration must then transfer the FIR to the appropriate jurisdictional station for investigation.
E-FIR. Section 173 BNSS expressly permits information to be given "by electronic communication". A new clause (ii) in sub-section (1) makes the e-FIR an officially recognised mode. You can file your FIR online, with three days to sign it physically.
Preliminary inquiry for medium offences. A new sub-section (3) of Section 173 BNSS allows the police, with the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case — but only for offences punishable with three years or more but less than seven years. For offences with longer punishment, registration of the FIR remains mandatory and immediate.
Magistrate remedy when SP fails. Sub-section (4) of Section 173 BNSS adds a new remedy: where the aggrieved person is dissatisfied with the SP's response, "such aggrieved person may make an application to the Magistrate". Earlier you had to go to the High Court for a writ; now you have an explicit statutory route.
Fortnightly forwarding of NC daily diary. A new clause in Section 174 BNSS requires the officer-in-charge to forward the daily diary report of all non-cognizable cases fortnightly to the Magistrate. The Magistrate now sees the NC register without the complainant having to walk it over. This is a small but useful change.
90-day update for ongoing investigations. Section 193(3)(ii) BNSS — the chargesheet section — now requires the investigating officer to inform the informant or victim of the progress of the investigation every 90 days, including by electronic means. The same change applies to follow-up of NC cases that the Magistrate has directed the police to investigate.
The cumulative effect is that the BNSS shrinks the room a recalcitrant SHO has to keep your case in limbo. None of these changes overturns a single principle from the case law summarised in §1 to §6 — Pravin Chandra Mody, Md. Malfar, Rishbud, and Annie Kashy all continue to be good law on the BNSS — but they do reduce the practical friction.
What Should I Actually Do at the Counter?
If you are walking into a police station tonight, work through this list.
- Know what you are claiming. Before you reach the counter, write a one-page narrative: who, when, where, what, and (if you know) why. Carry two copies. If you have photographs, medical reports, CCTV references, mobile call records — list them.
- Tell the SHO the offence, not just the story. If you have been hurt with a weapon, say "hurt with a weapon" — not "kuch jhagda hua tha". If your shop has been broken into and goods worth one lakh have been stolen, say so plainly. The First Schedule answers the cognizable question on the basis of what offence is alleged, not on the basis of how mildly you describe it.
- Ask which section the SHO is registering. If the matter is being entered as an "NC", ask under which BNS section. If it is being entered as an FIR, ask the same. You are not being difficult — you are creating a record.
- If you receive an NC for what you believe is a cognizable offence, do not argue at the counter. Take the NC copy. Walk out. That paper is your evidence that you reported the matter.
- Send the SP a written communication under Section 173(4) BNSS (Section 154(3) CrPC) the same day or the next day. Send it by registered post; keep the receipt. State the offence, the date, the SHO's refusal to register an FIR, and the NC number you were given.
- Consult a lawyer about a Section 175(3) BNSS (Section 156(3) CrPC) application. If the SP does not respond within 7 to 10 days, the Magistrate route is the next step.
- If your case is already an FIR, take the free copy under Section 173(2) BNSS, photograph it on your phone, and email a copy to yourself for safekeeping.
- If your case is genuinely a non-cognizable offence and you do want it pursued, consult a lawyer about filing a complaint under Section 223 BNSS (formerly Section 200 CrPC) before the Magistrate. The "NC entry" by itself does nothing further unless the Magistrate is moved.
- Keep a diary. Date, time, station name, name of the recording officer, name of the SHO, what you were told, what paper you were given. The diary is small but it becomes invaluable if the matter ever reaches a higher court.
If you are unsure at any of these steps — particularly steps 5, 6 and 8 — sit down with a lawyer who has done this before. Pinaka Legal — Advocates and Solicitors, Delhi — has handled SP escalations, Magistrate applications, and NC-vs-FIR contests across the NCR for years and can read your matter and tell you in plain words which paper you should have got, and what to do now that you have what you have.
A Final Word for the Person at the Counter Tonight
The difference between an FIR and an NCR is not a clerical detail. It is the difference between the police investigating your case and not investigating it; between the offender being arrested and not being arrested; between the case moving on its own and the case sitting on a Magistrate's table waiting for you to push it.
But the law does not punish a complainant who walks out with the wrong piece of paper. It gives you three escape routes — the SP, the Magistrate, and the High Court — and it tells the SHO in plain words that he cannot use the NC register to hide a cognizable offence. The case law, from Pravin Chandra Mody in 1965 to Md. Malfar in 2007 and Annie Kashy along the way, all says the same thing — the Code's classification is a public-interest classification, not a courtesy that the SHO extends or withholds.
What the law expects of you is small but firm. Know what offence you are claiming. Know where it sits in the First Schedule. Take whatever paper you are given home, and then choose your next step coolly and on time. Speak to a lawyer this week if you can — not next month.
Written by the Pinaka Legal Editorial Team. For queries on FIR refusals, NC entries, or Section 175(3) BNSS applications in Delhi or NCR, call +91 8595704798 or email info@pinakalegal.com.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the actual difference between an FIR and an NCR?
An FIR (Section 173 BNSS, formerly Section 154 CrPC) is the document the police register for cognizable offences — those listed as "cognizable" in Column 3 of the First Schedule. An NCR or "NC entry" (Section 174 BNSS, formerly Section 155 CrPC) is the entry the police make in the non-cognizable register for offences where they cannot arrest without a warrant. The FIR triggers immediate police investigation; the NCR does nothing until you, the informant, move the Magistrate.
Can the police refuse to register my FIR if they think the case is weak?
No. The duty under Section 173 BNSS is mandatory once the information discloses a cognizable offence. The commentary on Section 154 CrPC records the Supreme Court's blunt rule that "genuineness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent to the registration of the case". The SHO is not allowed to test your story before recording the FIR — that is the Magistrate's job at a later stage.
I was given only an NC entry but my offence is clearly cognizable. What should I do?
Three steps. First, send a written communication to the Superintendent of Police of the district under Section 173(4) BNSS (Section 154(3) CrPC). Second, if the SP does not act, file an application before the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS (formerly Section 156(3) CrPC) — see our wider guide on the FIR-stage problems cluster for the practical detail. Third, in genuinely stubborn cases, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to the High Court for a writ of mandamus.
My case has both cognizable and non-cognizable offences. How does the police handle that?
As a single cognizable case. Section 174(4) BNSS (formerly Section 155(4) CrPC) creates a legal fiction — if even one offence is cognizable, the entire case is treated as cognizable. The Supreme Court in Pravin Chandra Mody v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1965 SC 1185) confirmed this. The police cannot pick out the cognizable offences for FIR and bury the non-cognizable ones in the NC register.
Can the police investigate a non-cognizable case without going to the Magistrate?
No. Section 174(2) BNSS (formerly Section 155(2) CrPC) is mandatory — "no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate". Md. Malfar Rahaman v. Md. Kajimal (AIR 2007 CrLJ 1536 (Gau)) and Siddanagowda v. State (1998 CrLJ 2162 (Kant)) hold that the Magistrate cannot take cognizance on such a report, and a later order from the Magistrate cannot validate the earlier illegal investigation.
What if the trial has already finished — can the conviction be set aside because the NC investigation was illegal?
Usually no. The Supreme Court in H.N. Rishbud v. State (AIR 1955 SC 196) and the Madras High Court in Pakkirisamin in re. ((1970) 1 MLJ 488) held that once the trial is concluded, an irregular investigation does not vitiate the conviction unless prejudice to the accused is shown. The proper time to raise the illegality is before the trial is over — by way of revision or under the inherent powers of the High Court.
I do not want a criminal trial — I just want the police to talk to my neighbour. Can the NC entry help?
An NC entry by itself does not lead to police action. The police are not allowed to investigate without a Magistrate's order, and a Magistrate will not lightly direct an investigation in a non-cognizable case unless a private complaint is filed. If your real wish is just a "warning" to the neighbour, an NC entry sometimes serves as social pressure — but legally, nothing further moves until you file a complaint under Section 223 BNSS (formerly Section 200 CrPC) before the Magistrate.
Is "Zero FIR" the same as an FIR?
Yes — and the BNSS now codifies it. Section 173 BNSS expressly provides that the FIR can be registered "irrespective of the area where the offence is committed". The official commentary on the BNSS-CrPC Correspondence Table records that this corresponds to "the concept of 'zero FIR'". You can walk into any police station, not only the one in whose territorial jurisdiction the offence occurred. The station that registers must then forward the FIR to the appropriate jurisdictional station for investigation.
Can I file my FIR online under the BNSS?
Yes. Section 173 BNSS now expressly permits information to be given "by electronic communication", and a new clause (ii) in sub-section (1) recognises the e-FIR as an official mode. The standard practice as it has emerged is that the informant signs the e-FIR physically within three days. Several State police portals now run e-FIR systems. For an NC matter, online registration is also generally accepted, though the substance is still entered in the NC register at the station and a copy is forwarded fortnightly to the Magistrate under the new Section 174(ii) BNSS.
The SHO told me bigamy is non-cognizable. Why was my case still registered as an FIR?
Because of Section 174(4) BNSS (Section 155(4) CrPC). Bigamy under Section 494 IPC is, on its own, non-cognizable. But where bigamy is alleged together with cruelty under Section 498A IPC (cognizable) or with offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act (cognizable), the entire case is treated as cognizable. The commentary records exactly this as a worked example, and the Supreme Court has held the FIR-and-charge-sheet approach valid in such mixed-offence cases. A standalone bigamy allegation, however, would only get an NC entry — not an FIR.
For more articles on Indian law, visit the Pinaka Legal Blog.