Can police refuse to lodge FIR on email complaint from abroad? Kerala High Court answers

 The Kerala High Court, in the case YYYY v State of Kerala & Ors, delivered a significant judgment clarifying the obligations of the police under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) regarding the registration of FIRs, especially in the context of complaints sent via email from abroad and unsigned complaints.

Case Details:

• Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 4778 of 2020

• Date of Judgment: 1 July 2025

• Bench: Justice Kauser Edappagath

Background:

• The petitioner, an Indian citizen residing in Australia, sent a complaint via email in 2020 to the Director General of Police (DGP), Kerala, alleging cognizable offences against her husband.

• The DGP forwarded the complaint to the Muttom Police Station. However, the local police refused to act, citing that the complaint was unsigned and the complainant was not present in person, communicating this refusal in a letter dated 12.09.2020 (Annexure A9)

• Aggrieved by the inaction, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Key Findings and Legal Reasoning:

• The Court held that Section 173 of BNSS, 2023, gives statutory recognition to the concept of Zero FIR. This means that a police station must register a First Information Report (FIR) if a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, regardless of:

  • Whether the complaint is received from outside their territorial jurisdiction,

  • Whether it is unsigned,

  • Or whether it is sent via electronic means, including email from abroad.

• The Court emphasized that Zero FIR was introduced to ensure victims can file complaints regardless of jurisdiction. The intent is to remove procedural and territorial barriers for victims seeking redressal.

• The refusal by the police to register the FIR solely on technical grounds—such as lack of signature or the complainant's absence due to residing abroad—was found to be unjustified and contrary to the statutory mandate under BNSS

• The Court specifically stated:

  “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. In these circumstances, the rejection of Annexure A7 complaint made by the petitioner on the ground that it was unsigned and sent through e-mail from Australia cannot be justified.”

Order and Directions:

• The petition was disposed of with a direction to the Station House Officer of Muttom Police Station to act upon any fresh complaint submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with the procedure under Section 173 of the BNSS.

• The Court reiterated that police are duty-bound to register an FIR upon disclosure of a cognizable offence, regardless of the source or form of the complaint.

Significance:

• This judgment strengthens the implementation of Zero FIR and ensures that victims, including those residing abroad, are not denied access to justice due to technical or procedural defects in their complaints.

• It sets a clear precedent that formal defects such as lack of signature or territorial jurisdiction cannot be grounds for refusing to register an FIR under the new legal regime.

Summary Table:

Issue Addressed	Court’s Clarification
Complaint via email from abroad	Police must register FIR if a cognizable offence is disclosed, regardless of complainant’s location
Unsigned complaint	Lack of signature is not a valid reason to refuse FIR registration
Territorial jurisdiction	Police cannot refuse FIR for lack of jurisdiction; Zero FIR applies
Statutory basis	Section 173 BNSS, 2023 provides legal backing for Zero FIR and electronic complaints

This judgment reinforces the victim-centric approach of the BNSS and mandates prompt police action on all cognizable offence complaints, irrespective of technicalities or the complainant’s location.

Print Page