6.4 FIR, Police Investigation, Section 183 Statements & Remand
Key Takeaways
- Section 173 BNSS modernizes FIR registration by statutorily codifying Zero FIR (registration irrespective of jurisdiction) and electronic FIR (e-FIR), mandating physical signature within 3 days for e-FIR formalization.
- Section 173(3) BNSS introduces a statutory 14-day preliminary inquiry window for offences punishable between 3 and 7 years, requiring DySP approval to ascertain a prima facie case, legislatively modifying the absolute mandate of Lalita Kumari.
- Section 179 BNSS expands witness attendance protections by exempting males under 15, persons above 60 (lowered from 65 under CrPC 160), women, and persons with acute illnesses from attending anywhere other than their residence.
- Section 183 BNSS governs magisterial recording of confessions and statements, mandating electronic audio-video recording, pre-confession warnings, and recorded certifications of voluntariness.
- Section 187 BNSS fundamentally reforms remand by permitting 15 days of police custody in whole or in parts across the first 40 or 60 days of detention, while preserving the indefeasible right to default bail upon 60 or 90 days of incomplete investigation.
6.4 FIR, Police Investigation, Section 183 Statements & Remand
[!NOTE] The Investigative Crucible: Chapter XIII of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 173 to 196) constitutes the procedural engine of criminal law, regulating the receipt of information by the police, investigative powers, witness examination, recording of confessions, and judicial remand. The BNSS codifies major technological advancements—electronic FIRs, Zero FIRs, preliminary inquiries for intermediate offences, and flexible police custody intervals—which candidates must navigate with analytical precision.
Information in Cognizable Cases: Section 173 BNSS vs. CrPC Section 154
Section 173 BNSS governs the registration of the First Information Report (FIR). While retaining the foundational principle that cognizable information mandates prompt registration, Section 173 introduces statutory innovations designed to eliminate jurisdictional evasions and frivolous prosecutions.
1. Codification of Zero FIR [Section 173(1) BNSS]
For decades, police stations routinely turned away victims by claiming lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court repeatedly condemned this practice, directing the registration of a 'Zero FIR' to be transferred subsequently to the jurisdictional station. Section 173(1) BNSS explicitly codifies this doctrine into positive statutory law:
"Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where the offence is committed, may be given orally or by electronic communication to an officer in charge of a police station..."
2. Electronic FIR (e-FIR) Protocol [Section 173(1) Proviso]
Information relating to a cognizable offence may now be transmitted electronically (via email, police portals, or mobile apps). However, to prevent fabricated complaints, the proviso to Section 173(1) BNSS establishes a strict formalization requirement:
"Provided that the information given by electronic communication shall be taken on record by him on being signed within three days by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book..."
If the informant fails to provide a physical signature within three days, the electronic communication cannot be formally registered as an FIR.
3. The 14-Day Preliminary Inquiry Mechanism [Section 173(3) BNSS]
A landmark legislative addition in the BNSS is Section 173(3), which addresses intermediate offences:
SECTION 173(3) PRELIMINARY INQUIRY PIPELINE
Information received regarding offence punishable with:
IMPRISONMENT >= 3 YEARS BUT < 7 YEARS
│
▼
Officer in Charge of Police Station, with PRIOR PERMISSION of an officer
NOT BELOW THE RANK OF DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (DySP),
considering nature and gravity of offence, may:
│
┌───────────────────┴───────────────────┐
▼ ▼
OPTION A: Conduct PRELIMINARY INQUIRY OPTION B: Proceed directly with
within a period of <b>14 DAYS</b> to INVESTIGATION where prima
ascertain whether a prima facie case facie case exists.
exists for proceeding in the matter.
│
▼
Prima facie case established? ──> Proceed to full Investigation.
No prima facie case found? ──> Close information with written reasons.
[!IMPORTANT] Harmonization with Lalita Kumari Doctrine: In the celebrated Constitution Bench decision Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. ((2014) 2 SCC 1), the Supreme Court held that registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC if the information discloses a cognizable offence, permitting a preliminary inquiry within 7 days only in exceptional categories (e.g., matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption cases). Section 173(3) BNSS creates a broader statutory framework: for any offence punishable between 3 and 7 years, the police may conduct a preliminary inquiry within 14 days, provided prior permission is secured from a DySP.
4. Remedies Against Police Refusal to Register FIR
- Section 173(4) BNSS [CrPC Section 154(3)]: Any person aggrieved by a refusal to record information may send the substance in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police (SP), who may investigate or direct investigation.
- Section 175(3) BNSS [CrPC Section 156(3)]: If the SP fails to act, the informant may file an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, supported by an affidavit disclosing compliance with Section 173(4) (Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287).
Information in Non-Cognizable Cases (Section 174 BNSS / CrPC Section 155)
- When information is given of a non-cognizable offence, the officer in charge enters the substance in the Non-Cognizable Register (Station Diary) and refers the informant to the Magistrate.
- Absolute Bar on Police Investigation [Section 174(2) BNSS]: No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.
- Deemed Cognizable Rule [Section 174(4) BNSS / CrPC Section 155(4)]: 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, empowering the police to investigate all offences without magisterial sanction.
Police Investigation: Witness Examination & Statements
1. Power to Require Attendance of Witnesses [Section 179 BNSS / CrPC Section 160]
An investigating officer may, by order in writing, require the attendance before himself of any person acquainted with the facts of the case residing within the limits of his own or adjoining station.
[!NOTE] Critical Statutory Age Revision in Proviso to Section 179(1) BNSS: No male person under the age of fifteen years, or person above the age of sixty years (lowered from 65 years under CrPC Section 160), or woman, or mentally or physically disabled person, or person with acute illness, shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such person resides.
2. Examination of Witnesses by Police [Section 180 BNSS / CrPC Section 161]
- The investigating officer may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
- Such person is bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture (protecting the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination under Article 20(3)).
- Section 180(3) BNSS explicitly allows police to record statements by audio-video electronic means.
3. Evidentiary Ban on Signing and Using Police Statements [Section 181 BNSS / CrPC Section 162]
- No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation shall be signed by the person making it.
- Nor shall any such statement be used for any purpose at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made.
- The Sole Statutory Exception: Contradiction: The statement may be used exclusively to contradict such witness under Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) (corresponding to Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) by the accused, or with court permission by the prosecution, after proving the omission or contradiction through the investigating officer. Statements recorded under Section 180 can never be used for corroboration.
Recording of Confessions & Statements by Magistrate (Section 183 BNSS)
Section 183 BNSS (corresponding to Section 164 CrPC) governs the recording of confessions and statements by Magistrates during investigation:
- Competent Magistrate: Any Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class may record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial.
- Audio-Video Recording Mandate: Section 183(1) BNSS specifically codifies that confessions and statements may also be recorded by audio-video electronic means in the presence of the advocate of the person accused of an offence.
Mandatory Statutory Warnings Before Recording Confessions [Section 183(2) BNSS]
Before recording a confession, the Magistrate is bound by three non-negotiable statutory safeguards:
- The Magistrate shall explain to the person making the confession that he is not bound to make a confession;
- The Magistrate shall warn him that, if he does so, it may be used as evidence against him;
- The Magistrate shall not record any such confession unless, upon questioning the person, he has reason to believe that it is being made voluntarily.
[!CAUTION] Protection from Police Custody [Section 183(3) BNSS]: If at any time before the confession is recorded, the person appearing before the Magistrate states that he is not willing to make the confession, the Magistrate shall not authorize the detention of such person in police custody. Returning an unwilling confessor to police remand is illegal and vitiates the voluntariness of any subsequent statement.
Statutory Memorandum at the Foot of Confession [Section 183(4) BNSS]
The Magistrate must append a signed certificate at the foot of the record in the following statutory terms:
"I have explained to (name) that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him and I believe that this confession was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing, and was read over to the person making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by him."
Statements of Sexual Offence Victims [Section 183(6) BNSS]
In offences punishable under Sections 64 to 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (rape and sexual assaults), the Magistrate shall record the statement of the person against whom such offence has been committed as soon as the commission of the offence is brought to the notice of the police. Such statement shall be recorded by a woman Judicial Magistrate, or in her absence, by a male Judicial Magistrate in the presence of a woman.
Remand and Default Bail (Section 187 BNSS vs. CrPC Section 167)
When investigation cannot be completed within the 24-hour limit mandated by Section 58 BNSS and Article 22(2), the police must produce the accused before the nearest Judicial Magistrate under Section 187 BNSS.
BNSS SECTION 187 REMAND TIMELINE
Accused Produced before Judicial Magistrate within 24 Hours
│
▼
POLICE CUSTODY REMAND [Section 187(2) & 187(3) BNSS]:
- Maximum Aggregate: <b>15 DAYS</b>
- <b>IN WHOLE OR IN PARTS</b> at any time during the first <b>40 DAYS</b> (for 60-day offences)
or first <b>60 DAYS</b> (for 90-day offences)
(Overrules the strict CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni first-15-days restriction)
│
▼
TOTAL DETENTION PERIODS [Section 187(3) BNSS]:
┌────────────────────────────┴────────────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
<b>90 DAYS MAXIMUM DETENTION</b> <b>60 DAYS MAXIMUM DETENTION</b>
Offences punishable with: All other offences.
- Death;
- Imprisonment for Life;
- Imprisonment <b>NOT LESS THAN 10 YEARS</b>
(Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam)
└────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘
│
▼
Investigation Incomplete & Charge Sheet NOT Filed on Expiry of 60 / 90 Days?
│
▼
<b>INDEFEASIBLE RIGHT TO DEFAULT BAIL</b> (Statutory Bail)
Accused MUST be released on bail if prepared to furnish surety
(Sanjay Dutt, Bikramjit Singh, M. Ravindran doctrines)
The Fundamental Police Custody Reform in Section 187 BNSS
- The Old CrPC Rule: Under Section 167(2) CrPC, as authoritatively construed in CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni ((1992) 3 SCC 141), police custody remand could be granted only during the first 15 days from the date of initial production. After day 15, the accused could only be remanded to judicial custody.
- The BNSS Paradigm Shift: Under Section 187(2) and (3) BNSS, the Magistrate may authorize detention in police custody for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole, or in parts, at any time during the initial forty days or sixty days out of the total detention period of sixty or ninety days. This statutory modification enables investigating agencies to seek police remand in later stages of investigation if fresh co-accused are arrested or new physical recoveries emerge.
Default Bail / Statutory Bail Parameters
- Thresholds: Under Section 187(3) BNSS, the outer ceiling of pre-charge detention is 90 days for offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, and 60 days for any other offence.
- The 10-Year Jurisprudence: In Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam ((2017) 15 SCC 67), the Supreme Court clarified that an offence punishable with imprisonment "which may extend up to 10 years" falls under the 60-day category; only offences where the minimum sentence is not less than 10 years qualify for the 90-day period.
- Indefeasible Right: If the investigating agency fails to file a police report (charge sheet) under Section 193 BNSS within 60 or 90 days, the accused acquires an absolute, indefeasible constitutional and statutory right to default bail, which cannot be defeated by subsequent filing of the charge sheet while the bail application is pending (Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 616; M. Ravindran v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, (2021) 2 SCC 485).
Practical Exam Traps & Maharashtra Subordinate Judiciary Tips
| Trap Subject | Common Misconception | Correct Statutory / Judicial Position |
|---|---|---|
| e-FIR Signature Window | Assuming an e-FIR becomes a permanent registered FIR immediately upon email dispatch. | Under Section 173(1) proviso BNSS, an e-FIR must be signed within three days by the informant before it is formally registered. |
| Witness Attendance Age | Quoting the old CrPC 160 age limit of 65 years for home examination. | Under Section 179 BNSS proviso, the age threshold is lowered to sixty (60) years; persons above 60 cannot be summoned to the police station. |
| Police Custody Timing | Believing police custody under BNSS is strictly limited to the first 15 days of arrest. | Section 187 BNSS allows the 15-day police custody to be granted in whole or in parts across the first 40 or 60 days of total detention. |
| Default Bail for 10-Year Extensible Offences | Applying the 90-day remand ceiling to offences punishable with imprisonment 'up to 10 years'. | Under Rakesh Kumar Paul, offences where the term may extend to 10 years fall within the 60-day default bail bracket. |
Under Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, within what maximum time period may an officer in charge of a police station conduct a preliminary inquiry (with prior permission of an officer not below the rank of DySP) for offences punishable with imprisonment for three years or more but less than seven years?
Under the proviso to Section 179(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, what is the age threshold above which a person cannot be required by a police officer to attend an examination at any place other than their residence?
Under Section 183(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, what is the mandatory statutory consequence when an accused person produced before a Magistrate for recording a confession expresses unwillingness to make the confession?
Under Section 187(2) and (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, how does the authorization of police custody remand fundamentally differ from the doctrine previously established under Section 167(2) CrPC in CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni?