Justice Kauser Edappagath of the Kerala High Court has held that the police cannot reject a complaint relating to a cognizable offence merely on the grounds that it was unsigned or sent via e-mail from abroad. The Court emphasized the statutory recognition of Zero FIR under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and directed the police to act upon any fresh complaint submitted by the petitioner.
Background
The petitioner, an Indian citizen currently residing in Australia, had filed an e-mail complaint to the Director General of Police, Kerala, alleging offences against her husband. The DGP had forwarded the complaint to the Muttom Police Station. However, the police declined to take action, citing that the complaint was unsigned and the petitioner was not personally available due to her residence abroad. This refusal was communicated via a letter dated 12.09.2020 (Annexure A9).
Challenging this action, the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 4778 of 2020 before the High Court.
Arguments
Advocate T.B. Shajimon appeared for the petitioner, while Senior Public Prosecutor E.C. Bineesh represented the State.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the refusal to act upon a cognizable offence complaint merely due to its format or the complainant’s location defeats the object of criminal law and the victim’s right to legal remedy.
Court’s Analysis
The Court took note of the changes introduced by the BNSS, specifically Section 173, which provides statutory backing to the concept of Zero FIR.
“Zero FIR has been introduced with the primary purpose of ensuring that victims can file complaints regardless of jurisdiction. Therefore, the police cannot refuse to register an FIR if a cognizable offence is made out in the complaint, even if the complaint is forwarded from a foreign country,” the Court observed.
The Court found that the Muttom Police’s refusal to act on the e-mail complaint was not legally sustainable under the BNSS.
Decision
Justice Kauser Edappagath disposed of the petition with the following direction:
“This Crl.M.C. is disposed of directing the respondent No.6 to act upon the complaint, if any, given by the petitioner following the procedure contemplated in BNSS, especially Section 173.”
The petitioner had expressed willingness to submit a fresh complaint.
