Home > Resources > Criminal Law > Criminal Complaints, FIR & Charge-sheet Review
Criminal Complaints, FIR & Charge-sheet Review FAQs
These FAQs explain criminal complaints, FIR registration and refusal, Magistrate complaint procedure, cross-FIRs, investigation, police reports or charge-sheets, discharge, quashing and electronic-evidence review under the current Indian criminal-procedure framework.
Important scope note. The applicable procedural code, offence classification, ingredients, investigation history, court stage and special-statute provisions must be identified from the actual record. BNSS provisions should not be substituted mechanically where Section 531 preserves the earlier CrPC procedure, and an FIR or police charge-sheet is not a judicial finding of guilt.
A. FIR, Criminal Complaint and Applicable Procedure
An FIR is the police record of information relating to a cognizable offence under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and ordinarily initiates police investigation. A “complaint” under the BNSS is an allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate with a view to the Magistrate taking action under the Sanhita, and it does not include a police report. The appropriate route depends on the alleged offence, facts, evidence and the relief sought.
A cognizable offence is one for which a police officer may arrest without warrant in accordance with the First Schedule or another applicable law. Police can ordinarily investigate a cognizable case without first obtaining a Magistrate’s order, subject to the BNSS safeguards and any special-law requirements.
For a non-cognizable offence, the police ordinarily record the substance of the information and refer the informant to the Magistrate. Under Section 174, police cannot investigate such a case without the Magistrate’s order and, even after that order, do not acquire the power to arrest without warrant merely by reason of the investigation. If a case contains two or more offences and at least one is cognizable, it is treated as a cognizable case for this purpose.
The BNSS came into force on 1 July 2024, but it does not mechanically govern every proceeding after that date. Section 531 repeals the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 while preserving the earlier Code for specified appeals, applications, trials, inquiries and investigations that were pending immediately before BNSS commencement. A review should therefore identify when the relevant proceeding or investigation began and apply the savings clause before substituting BNSS section numbers for the earlier CrPC provisions.
A preliminary review can identify the correct statutory ingredients, whether the alleged offences are cognizable or non-cognizable, the appropriate territorial and procedural route, limitation or sanction issues, available supporting material and obvious evidentiary gaps. It can also distinguish a genuine criminal allegation from a predominantly civil, contractual or family dispute in which criminal provisions should not be invoked merely as pressure.
No. The required mental element depends on the particular offence. Some offences expressly require intention, knowledge, dishonesty, fraud or another mental state; others operate differently or can include statutory exceptions. Complaint drafting should map the actual facts to every legal ingredient of each proposed offence instead of inserting a generic assertion of criminal intent.
No. An FIR records the information that sets the criminal process in motion; it is not a judicial finding of guilt. Investigation, evidentiary scrutiny, cognizance, discharge or charge-framing and trial remain separate stages. The allegations must ultimately be tested under the applicable burden and rules of evidence.
No. Arrest is governed separately by Section 35 and other applicable BNSS provisions. For cognizable offences punishable up to seven years, Section 35 requires the police officer to satisfy the statutory conditions for arrest and record reasons for arrest; where arrest is not required, reasons for not arresting must also be recorded and the notice mechanism under Section 35 must be considered. An FIR number is therefore not proof that immediate arrest must follow.
B. FIR Registration, Preliminary Enquiry and Refusal by Police
Yes. Section 173(1) states that information relating to a cognizable offence may be given to the officer in charge of a police station irrespective of the area where the offence was committed. This is the statutory basis for the practice commonly described as a “Zero FIR”, with jurisdictional handling following thereafter.
Yes. Section 173 permits information concerning a cognizable offence to be given by electronic communication. Where it is given electronically, it is taken on record on being signed by the informant within three days. The electronic submission, acknowledgement and subsequent signed record should be preserved.
Yes. Section 173(2) requires a copy of the information recorded under Section 173(1) to be given forthwith and free of cost to the informant or victim. The copy should be checked for accuracy, including names, dates, sections and the substance of the allegation.
In the category addressed by Section 173(3), yes. Where information concerns a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more but less than seven years, the officer in charge may, considering the nature and gravity of the offence and with prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, conduct a preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists within fourteen days, or proceed with investigation where a prima facie case exists.
No. Section 173(3) uses a discretionary structure: in the qualifying category, and with the required prior permission, the officer in charge may conduct the specified preliminary enquiry or proceed with investigation where a prima facie case exists. In Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 410, the Supreme Court examined the new preliminary-enquiry mechanism in the context of the facts before it, including speech and expression. That decision should not be converted into a rule that every cognizable offence punishable from three years to less than seven years must first pass through a preliminary enquiry.
Section 173(4) permits a person aggrieved by refusal to record information under Section 173(1) to send the substance of the information, in writing and by post, to the concerned Superintendent of Police. If the Superintendent is satisfied that the information discloses a cognizable offence, the statute says the Superintendent shall either investigate the case personally or direct investigation by a subordinate police officer. If that statutory route does not produce the contemplated action, the aggrieved person may make an application to the competent Magistrate.
Section 175(3) permits an empowered Magistrate to order investigation after considering an application supported by an affidavit made following the Section 173(4) route. The Magistrate may make such inquiry as considered necessary and must consider the submission made by the police officer. The application should therefore place the prior statutory steps, material facts, supporting documents and the basis for seeking police investigation on record rather than merely repeat the earlier complaint.
No. Section 175(3) requires judicial consideration before an investigation order is made. The Magistrate considers the affidavit-supported application, may make such inquiry as considered necessary, and considers the police officer’s submission. Current Supreme Court authority under the BNSS also emphasises compliance with the statutory safeguards rather than mechanical reproduction of the earlier Section 156(3) CrPC practice. The order should therefore reflect application of mind to the facts and the statutory route actually invoked.
Section 174 ordinarily requires the police to enter the substance of the information, refer the informant to the Magistrate and refrain from investigating without a Magistrate’s order. The proposed complaint should therefore not describe every dispute as requiring an FIR without first checking the statutory classification of the offences.
Yes. Section 173 contains special requirements for specified offences, including recording by a woman police officer or woman officer in the listed cases. Where the victim has specified mental or physical disabilities, the information is to be recorded at the person’s residence or a convenient place of choice with appropriate assistance, the recording is to be videographed and the Magistrate’s statement is to be arranged as provided by the BNSS.
C. Complaint Drafting and Proceedings Before the Magistrate
A complaint should present a clear and accurate chronology, identify the persons involved, attribute specific acts or omissions where the facts permit, identify the legal ingredients relied upon, state the relevant place and dates, and refer to supporting documents, witnesses and electronic material. It should distinguish what the complainant directly knows from information received from others and should avoid speculation presented as fact.
Criminal liability generally has to be connected to the legal basis on which each person is sought to be proceeded against. General or omnibus allegations can obscure the actual case and can become important in discharge or quashing proceedings. Where group liability, conspiracy, abetment or another statutory form of attribution is relied upon, the factual basis for that doctrine should be stated rather than assumed.
No. The factual allegations are primary. Proposed sections can assist legal analysis, but indiscriminate addition of offences can weaken credibility and distract from the actual ingredients. Police and courts are not conclusively bound by the complainant’s legal labels and may apply the provisions supported by the facts.
Yes, depending on the facts and proof. Material exaggeration can damage credibility and can contribute to dismissal, discharge or quashing where the legal requirements are not made out. Knowingly false evidence, fabrication, false accusation or malicious proceedings can also attract separate legal consequences in appropriate cases, but those consequences are not automatic merely because a complaint ultimately fails.
Where relevant, yes. Contracts, invoices, bank records, messages, emails, CCTV material, photographs, call records, medical documents and other material can help explain the factual basis of the allegation. Important originals and native electronic records should be preserved; the complaint should not depend on edited screenshots where fuller source material exists.
No. BNSS Sections 514 to 519 govern limitation for taking cognizance of specified categories of offences. Section 514 provides six months where the offence is punishable with fine only, one year where imprisonment does not exceed one year, and three years where imprisonment exceeds one year but does not exceed three years. Its Explanation treats the relevant date, for computing that statutory period, as the date of filing the complaint under Section 223 or recording information under Section 173. The Chapter also contains exclusion and computation rules; Section 518 addresses continuing offences, and Section 519 permits cognizance after expiry where delay is properly explained or this is necessary in the interests of justice. Special statutes may prescribe different rules.
Section 223 ordinarily requires the Magistrate taking cognizance on complaint to examine the complainant and the witnesses present on oath, subject to the statutory exceptions. Its first proviso states that no cognizance shall be taken without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. In a judgment dated 19 May 2026, reported as 2026 INSC 519, the Supreme Court held this pre-cognizance hearing right to be substantive and mandatory under the BNSS and stated that cognizance taken without compliance would be void ab initio. Where the complaint arises under a special statute, the interaction between that statute and the BNSS should still be checked.
Yes. Section 225 permits the Magistrate to postpone issue of process and either inquire into the case personally or direct the permitted investigation for deciding whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists. Where the accused resides beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises jurisdiction, the section uses mandatory language requiring postponement of process and the statutory inquiry/investigation mechanism, subject to the provisos governing cases triable exclusively by the Court of Session and complaints not made by a Court.
Under Section 226, after considering the sworn statements and the result of any inquiry or investigation under Section 225, the Magistrate can dismiss the complaint if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding and must briefly record reasons. If sufficient ground exists, process can be issued under Section 227.
Yes, where the alleged act is connected with the discharge of official duties. Section 175(4), when an investigation order is sought against a public servant, requires the Magistrate to address a superior officer’s report and the public servant’s assertions in the statutory setting. The Supreme Court in 2026 INSC 88 held that Section 175(4) is not a stand-alone route and must be read with Section 175(3). Separately, Section 223(2) restricts cognizance on a complaint against a public servant for an offence alleged to have been committed in the course of official functions or duties unless the public servant is given the prescribed opportunity to make assertions and the superior officer’s report is received. Any separate sanction requirement must also be checked.
Section 233 contains a coordination mechanism. If, during a complaint case, it appears that police investigation is in progress in relation to the same offence, the Magistrate is to stay the complaint inquiry or trial and call for the police report. The subsequent procedure depends on whether the police report leads to cognizance against a person who is also an accused in the complaint case.
D. Counter-Complaints, Cross-FIRs and Rival Versions
A cross-case arises where opposing sides place rival criminal versions of the same incident or closely connected occurrence before the authorities. A genuine counter-version is legally distinct from an impermissible attempt by the same side to create multiple FIRs merely by repeating or improving the same allegations.
No. Supreme Court authority distinguishes repetitive FIRs concerning the same occurrence from a genuine counter-case presenting the rival version of the incident. Whether a later FIR is legally maintainable depends on the identity of the occurrence, informant, allegations and whether it is truly a counter-version rather than a duplicate prosecution.
Where genuine rival FIRs arise from the same occurrence, the investigation should recognise their interrelationship and examine the competing versions fairly rather than treating each version as if the other did not exist. In a Supreme Court judgment dated 29 April 2025, the Court expressly stressed holistic investigation of connected cross-FIRs in the factual setting before it. That principle does not permit evidence to be suppressed or substitute assumptions for investigation; each case must still be investigated on its own allegations and evidence.
The fair procedure described by the Supreme Court in Nathi Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh is ordinarily for the same Judge, where practicable, to try the cross-cases one after the other. Evidence and arguments in the first case are completed but judgment is reserved; the cross-case is then tried, and separate judgments are delivered after both matters have been heard. Later Supreme Court authority has reiterated the importance of coordinated handling of genuine cross-cases while preserving separate evidentiary records.
No. The Nathi Lal procedure requires the two cases to retain separate evidentiary records. The Judge should decide each case on the evidence legally brought on record in that case rather than importing evidence from the companion case merely because both arise from the same incident.
No. A counter-complaint should record a genuine legally relevant rival version supported by facts and available evidence. A retaliatory or fabricated complaint can create additional criminal and credibility risks. Before filing, the chronology, injuries, documents, digital evidence, witness accounts and earlier communications should be compared with the existing FIR.
E. Investigation and the Police Report / Charge-sheet
The expression commonly refers to the police report forwarded to the Magistrate under Section 193 after investigation where the police case proceeds on the basis that an offence appears to have been committed and identifies the person or persons concerned. The police report is not the same thing as the formal judicial charge later framed by the trial court.
Section 193 requires the report to address matters including the parties, nature of the information, persons acquainted with the case, whether an offence appears to have been committed and by whom, arrest or bail status, custody status and specified additional particulars. The prosecution’s relied-upon documents and statements of proposed witnesses are also forwarded subject to the statutory provisions.
No. A police report reflects the investigation and the investigating agency’s conclusion. The court separately decides cognizance, discharge or framing of charge and ultimately guilt at trial. The evidentiary threshold at the charge stage is different from proof beyond reasonable doubt required for conviction.
Every investigation under Section 193 is to be completed without unnecessary delay. Section 193(2) specifically requires investigation of offences under Sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70 and 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 to be completed within two months from the date on which the information was recorded by the officer in charge of the police station. Other investigations remain governed by the general BNSS framework and any separately applicable custody, bail or special-statute timelines.
Section 193 requires the police officer to inform the informant or victim of the progress of investigation within ninety days by any means, including electronic communication. The action taken is also to be communicated in the manner prescribed. A matter file should preserve such communications and any requests for status.
Yes. Section 193(9) expressly preserves further investigation after the police report has been forwarded, and further oral or documentary evidence may be sent to the Magistrate through a further report or reports. During trial, however, further investigation requires permission of the Court trying the case and is to be completed within ninety days; that period may be extended with the Court’s permission.
Section 230 requires the Magistrate, without delay and no later than fourteen days from production or appearance of the accused, to furnish free copies of the police report, FIR, specified witness statements, confessions or statements and other documents forwarded with the report, subject to the statutory exclusions. A victim represented by an advocate is also covered by the provision.
No. Section 192 permits the criminal court to call for police diaries to aid inquiry or trial, but the accused or agents do not obtain a general right to call for or inspect them merely because the court refers to them. Specific statutory exceptions apply where the diary is used by the police officer to refresh memory or by the court for contradiction.
Section 193 requires the police report to state the sequence of custody in the case of an electronic device. This makes device identification, seizure documentation, transfer history, forensic handling and integrity records important parts of charge-sheet review.
Section 105 requires the process of conducting a search or taking possession of property under the relevant BNSS chapter or under Section 185, including preparation of the seizure list and signatures of witnesses, to be recorded through audio-video electronic means, preferably a mobile phone. The police officer must forward the recording without delay to the District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class. A charge-sheet review should therefore identify whether Section 105 applied, whether the recording exists and how it was preserved and forwarded.
F. Charge-sheet Review, Discharge and Quashing
A review should map each alleged offence to its statutory ingredients and identify the material relied upon for each ingredient. It should also examine witness statements, documentary links, seizure records, forensic reports, electronic evidence, ownership or identity proof, medical material where relevant, chronology, sanction or jurisdiction issues and contradictions that are legally material at the current stage.
No. Some inconsistencies are minor or require trial for proper evaluation. A discharge-stage review should distinguish a fundamental absence of material supporting a legal ingredient from a factual contradiction that can only be tested through evidence and cross-examination. The court does not ordinarily conduct a full trial at the charge stage.
Because they perform different functions. The police report states the result of investigation and the offences that appear to the investigating agency to have been committed. The court independently decides whether the statutory threshold for framing a formal charge is met. A person named in a charge-sheet has not yet been convicted and may have available discharge or other remedies.
Section 250 permits the accused to apply for discharge within sixty days from the date of commitment of the case under Section 232. If, after considering the record and documents and hearing both sides, the Sessions Judge finds no sufficient ground for proceeding, the accused is to be discharged with reasons recorded.
Section 262 permits the accused to apply for discharge within sixty days from supply of documents under Section 230. If, after considering the police report, accompanying documents, any examination of the accused and hearing both sides, the Magistrate considers the charge groundless, the accused is to be discharged with reasons recorded.
No. At the charge stage the court considers whether there is the statutory ground for presuming commission of the offence or sufficient ground for proceeding, depending on the applicable provision. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a trial-stage requirement. A charge-sheet review should therefore avoid presenting a possible trial defence as though it necessarily compels discharge.
Yes, in an appropriate case. Where the BNSS governs, filing of a charge-sheet does not by itself eliminate the High Court’s inherent power under Section 528 to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. Supreme Court authority continues to recognise that quashing may remain available even after filing of a charge-sheet, but it is an exceptional remedy and does not convert the High Court into a trial court for resolving genuinely disputed evidence. For proceedings preserved under Section 531, the corresponding CrPC framework, including Section 482 where applicable, must be identified instead of mechanically substituting Section 528.
Relevant issues can include absence of an essential offence ingredient, a legal bar to prosecution, jurisdiction or sanction defects, allegations that remain purely civil despite being accepted at face value, demonstrably impossible chronology, lack of legally attributable acts, or continuation of proceedings amounting to abuse of process. The exact remedy and forum depend on the procedural stage and governing law.
G. Electronic Evidence, Preservation and Review Controls
No electronic record is admissible merely because it exists, but it cannot be rejected merely because it is electronic or digital either. Section 61 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides that an electronic or digital record is not to be denied admissibility on that ground and, subject to Section 63, has the same legal effect, validity and enforceability as another document. The proof route must still be identified correctly, including whether the record is being produced as primary electronic evidence or as a computer output governed by Section 63.
Yes, in the circumstances specified by Section 57 of the BSA. The provision treats, among other things, electronic or digital records stored simultaneously or sequentially in multiple files, records produced from proper custody unless disputed, stored copies of simultaneously transmitted video, and automated storage in multiple storage spaces as primary evidence in the stated situations. It is therefore inaccurate to assume that every electronic record is necessarily only secondary evidence.
Section 63 is relevant when a computer output is tendered through the statutory electronic-record route rather than as primary evidence under Section 57. Section 63(4) requires the prescribed certificate at each instance where the electronic record is submitted for admission; it must identify the record and manner of production, provide appropriate device or source particulars and address the statutory operating conditions. The statutory Schedule contains Part A for the party and Part B for an expert, and Section 63(4) refers to certification by the person in charge of the computer, communication device or relevant activities and an expert. A generic old Section 65B certificate should therefore not be used mechanically without checking the BSA route and Schedule.
The Schedule to the Section 63 certificate requires the hash value or values of the electronic or digital record, identifies the algorithm used and calls for the hash report to be enclosed. Hash information can assist in demonstrating integrity by helping identify whether the digital content has changed. It is not, by itself, the whole admissibility inquiry: the source, proof route, device particulars, statutory conditions, certificate requirements and custody history must also be addressed.
Chain of custody helps show how a device, sample or digital record moved from seizure through storage, extraction, examination and production. Breaks or unexplained changes can affect evidentiary weight and, depending on the issue, admissibility or reliability. Section 193’s express requirement to state the sequence of custody for an electronic device makes this a specific review point in BNSS police reports.
Preserve native files where lawfully available, original devices where relevant, complete message or email threads, export files, metadata, cloud records, URLs, timestamps, CCTV source material, platform records, backups, receipts or logs showing acquisition, and any forensic image or hash report. Edited screenshots should be retained only as working copies where the fuller source can also be preserved.
Common mistakes include applying the old CrPC without checking Section 531 savings; treating every dispute as cognizable; assuming FIR registration requires arrest; ignoring the Section 173(3) preliminary-enquiry framework; bypassing the Section 173(4) Superintendent of Police route before a Section 175(3) application; using omnibus allegations; asserting mens rea without checking the offence; treating a police charge-sheet as a judicial charge; failing to calendar the statutory sixty-day discharge-application periods; mixing evidence between cross-cases; and reducing electronic-evidence analysis to a screenshot or certificate alone.
Maintain a controlled chronology linking each allegation to the applicable statutory ingredient, supporting document or witness, disputed fact and procedural event. Record the governing procedural law, FIR or complaint route, service and filing dates, investigation communications, police-report documents, electronic-evidence chain, court stage and next deadline. This allows the legal analysis to remain evidence-led and stage-specific rather than being driven by the labels used in the FIR or charge-sheet.
If you have an FIR, criminal complaint, police report or charge-sheet requiring matter-specific document review, you may send a preliminary enquiry.
Subject to conflict check, scope confirmation, professional terms and express acceptance by the responsible Advocate.
Last reviewed: 19 September 2026