As transnational mobility increases, legal systems are challenged by issues of cross-border access to justice. In India, the question of whether an individual, particularly a non-resident Indian (NRI), may file a FIR engages questions of statutory interpretation, procedural flexibility, and evolving jurisprudence.The right to report a cognizable offence is the cornerstone of any criminal justice system. Indian criminal procedure, through Section 154 of the CrPC, establishes that any person may provide information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, upon which the police are duty-bound to register an FIR. However, when it comes to filing FIR from abroad, the question of territoriality and procedural access becomes critical.
Can a complainant located outside Indian territory initiate the criminal process by filing an FIR from abroad? Must the information be physically signed or delivered in person? How have courts responded to police refusals grounded in jurisdictional or technical objections?
Statutory Foundation: BNSS and the Right to Report
Section 154(1) CrPC, 1973[7], provided:
“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…and if given in writing shall be signed by the person giving it.”
Even though requirement to sign the eFIR exists, Recent judicial clarifications on same is given by Kerala High Court’s decision in Soya Antony v. State of Kerala (2025).
This foundational provision vests a duty upon the police to record a complaint disclosing a cognizable offence, regardless of the identity or location of the informant. The Supreme Court’s judgment in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh[1], authoritatively interpreted this as a mandatory obligation, holding that preliminary inquiry is not required unless the case falls under limited exceptions (e.g., matrimonial disputes or commercial transactions)
Enshrinement of Zero FIR: BNSS, 2023
The enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) marks a significant development in codifying procedural innovations. Section 173(1) of the BNSS expressly incorporates the concept of the Zero FIR:
“Information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence may be given orally or by electronic communication to the officer in charge of a police station, irrespective of the area where the offence was committed.”
This provision removes jurisdictional barriers at the threshold stage. It places a legal obligation upon the police to record FIRs even if the incident occurred outside the territorial jurisdiction of the police station where the complaint is first received.
The term “Zero FIR,” originally came for crime against women but now enjoys formal legislative recognition. Its primary objective is to prevent procedural denial of justice and enable complainants to initiate the criminal process without being re-traumatized by jurisdictional hurdles.
Judicial Clarification: Soya Antony v. State of Kerala (2025)
A Landmark: Kerala High Court’s Ruling in Soya Antony (2025)
In Soya Antony v. State of Kerala[5], the High Court examined a scenario faced by countless NRIs. An Indian woman based in Australia emailed a complaint to the Kerala DGP, alleging domestic abuse. The police declined to register an FIR, citing lack of a physical signature and her absence from India.
Justice K. Edappagath struck down the police’s refusal, holding that:
“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.”
This judgment has far-reaching implications, reaffirming that complaints sent via email, even unsigned or from overseas, cannot be dismissed on procedural grounds.
The Court relied on the language of Section 173 BNSS[6], concluding that format, signature, or geographic origin of the complaint cannot override the substantive duty to record information of a cognizable offence.
This decision marks an important judicial affirmation of the procedural equality of complainants, regardless of location. It also reinforces the principle that form should not defeat substance, particularly in cases involving vulnerable complainants such as women in NRI marriages.
Beyond Lalita Kumari, the Supreme Court has consistently reinforced the police’s duty to register FIRs:
• In Sindhu Janak Nagargoje v. State of Maharashtra[4], the Court directed FIR registration where complaints clearly disclosed cognizable offences. The Court emphasized that police must act upon receipt of such information without requiring further verification.
• In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan[3], the Court held that preliminary inquiries must not precede FIR registration unless expressly allowed.
Several High Courts have also upheld the right of overseas complainants. For instance, the Delhi High Court and Himachal Pradesh High Court have directed police to act on complaints received via post or email, provided the allegations disclose a cognizable offence. However, the Kerala High Court’s decision remains one of the first to clearly address FIRs filed from foreign jurisdictions via electronic communication.
At the same time, some High Courts have adopted safeguards against misuse. In a 2025 case, the Punjab & Haryana High Court[11] required NRI complainants to deposit security before pursuing repetitive complaints, expressing concern about frivolous litigation. This judicial balancing underscores the need for access without abuse.
If local police refuse to register an FIR, complainants, whether in India or abroad, complainant may:
1. Approach the Superintendent of Police with a detailed written complaint.
2. File a petition before a Magistrate accompanied by an affidavit as per Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U P[2]
3. Engage local counsel in India to facilitate filings, follow-up, and ensure procedural compliance.
These routes remain open to complainants abroad and are not contingent on physical presence, provided the documents and assertions are legally valid and verified.
Towards Borderless Access to Justice
There exists no statutory bar against the registration of FIRs based on information received from outside Indian territory. The jurisprudential trend exemplified by Soya Antony and guided by Lalita Kumari, strongly supports procedural inclusivity for overseas complainants in civil, criminal and matrimonial disputes.
As mobility, migration, and transnational relationships redefine the contours of crime and victimhood, India’s procedural law must keep pace, not merely in letter, but in spirit.
*Prachi Pratap, Advocate, Supreme Court
The author acknowledges Priyanshu Pareek, Law Student, JECRC for her contribution.
[1] Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1.
[2] Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287.
[3] Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005) 3 SCC 284.
[4] Sindhu Janak Nagargoje v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No.2351 2023 (SC, 8 Aug 2023).
[5] Soya Antony v. State of Kerala, Crl.M.C. No. 4778/2020 (Ker. HC, 20 June 2025).
[6] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, §173.
[7] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, §§154, 156, 177.
[8] National Commission for Women, NRI Cell FAQs (Feb 2025).
[9] Ministry of External Affairs, MADAD Portal FAQs (2024).
[10] Tolani v. State, Criminal Complaint (2020).
[11] Punjab & Haryana High Court Ruling on NRI FIRs (2025).