14-day time limit for police to register FIR in police cases; At least two major changes in procedural laws in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) – right to trial before prosecution of the accused – will face the Supreme Court’s landmark judgments on these issues.
The PNSS has replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973.
A police officer is allowed 14 days prior to the registration of an FIR, under Section 173(3) of the PNSS, for investigation offenses punishable by more than three years but less than seven years. Register an FIR and then proceed with investigation in the case.
i) proceed with the preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether there is prima facie evidence in the case for proceeding in the matter within 14 days; Or
(ii) proceed with the trial while the case is pending at the preliminary hearing,” says the Act.
The change is against the 2013 Supreme Court judgment in Lalitha Kumari vs State of Uttar Pradesh, which made it mandatory for the police to register an FIR. Filing of FIR without delay is a mechanism reiterated by the Supreme Court in several cases following the Lalitha Kumari guidelines.
While the Lalita Kumari judgment mandates that an FIR be registered if the information discloses a cognizable offence, allowing only preliminary inquiries to determine whether a cognizable offense has been disclosed, BNSS, 2023, expands this scope. Under the PNSS, preliminary investigations are conducted to determine whether there is a prima facie case for offenses punishable by imprisonment of three years or more but less than seven years.
Unlike the Lalita Kumari guidelines which specify categories like matrimonial disputes, commercial offenses and medical negligence, the BNSS is broadly applicable to all related offenses within a defined punishment range,” says the Bureau of Police Research and Development’s standard operating procedure.
On the accused’s right to trial, the PNSS makes an important change in the rule. Section 200 of the CrPC prescribes the procedure for examination by the Magistrate while investigating the complainant. It mandates that a Magistrate may take cognizance after examining the complainant on oath. Once taken up for trial, the accused is formally summoned.
The Supreme Court, in its 2004 judgment in State of Odisha and Debendranath Pathi, held that the accused do not have the right to produce documents to prove their innocence. In order to avoid a “surf and fish trial” and a “petite trial where the charge is framed”, the judge can consider only the materials on which the case has been filed.
The CrPC provision does not have this exemption – it exempts the complainant from examination only when the complainant is a public servant and in the discharge of his official duties.
