"Supreme Court Extends Mandatory FIR Rule to All Missing Adults"
FIR
formal written record of information about a cognizable offence, triggering police investigation.
Cognizable offence
offence where police may arrest without a warrant and investigate without court permission.
India's criminal procedure requires the police to register a First Information Report (FIR) whenever information discloses commission of a cognizable offence. This mandate now rests on Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which replaced Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014), a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court settled a long-running debate: registration of an FIR is mandatory once a cognizable offence is disclosed, and the police cannot conduct a preliminary enquiry to decide whether to register one. The Bench carved out narrow exceptions, matrimonial and family disputes, commercial and financial offences, corruption cases, medical negligence, and cases with abnormal delay, where a limited, time-bound preliminary enquiry may precede the FIR. The same logic underlies the Zero FIR, which lets a person report a cognizable offence at any police station regardless of territorial jurisdiction, with the station later transferring the case to the one that actually has jurisdiction.
This framework of mandatory registration, softened by narrow judicially recognised exceptions, is the backdrop for a separate line of Supreme Court directions on missing persons. In Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2013), dealing specifically with missing children, the court directed immediate FIR registration and required every police station to set up a Special Juvenile Police Unit under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. It also held that a missing child creates an initial presumption of abduction or trafficking, rebuttable only through investigation. Because a child's consent carries no legal weight, this presumption was considered unproblematic in that setting.
The scheme built around missing children rests on several linked mechanisms. Each police station must designate a specially trained Juvenile Welfare Officer under Section 63 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. If a missing child remains untraced four months after the FIR, the case must be forwarded to the district's Anti-Human Trafficking Unit (AHTU). Recovered children are restored to their guardians after verification, including Aadhaar-based identification. …
Which of the following statements about a Zero First Information Report (Zero FIR) under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is/are correct?
1.A Zero FIR can be lodged at any police station, even though the place of commission of a cognizable/non-cognizable offence is outside the territorial jurisdiction of that police station.
2.The Officer-in-Charge of the police station where a Zero FIR has been lodged may, with the permission of the competent authority, initiate a preliminary enquiry.
3.Under Zero FIR, it is obligatory for the informant to furnish information electronically.
Select the answer using the code given below:
Consider the following statements regarding FIR registration under Indian criminal law:
1.Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 corresponds to Section 154 of the CrPC, 1973 dealing with information in cognizable cases.
2.In Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014), the Supreme Court held that a preliminary enquiry can never precede registration of an FIR under any circumstance.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
With reference to Supreme Court directions on missing persons, consider the following statements:
1.For a missing child, the Supreme Court held there is an initial presumption of abduction or trafficking, rebuttable only through investigation.
2.In G. Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2026), the Supreme Court held that its mandatory FIR direction for missing persons applies only to missing children, not adults.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
The Supreme Court's directions in Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2013) primarily concerned which of the following?
Match List I (Mechanism) with List II (Purpose):
List I:
1.Zero FIR
2.Anti-Human Trafficking Unit (AHTU)
3.Special Juvenile Police Unit
List II:
A.District-level unit tasked with investigating trafficking cases
B.FIR registered at any police station regardless of territorial jurisdiction
C.Police unit designated to handle cases involving children
Select the correct code:
With reference to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, consider the following statements:
1.Section 63 provides for the designation of a Juvenile Welfare Officer at each police station.
2.If a missing child is not recovered within four months of FIR registration, the case must be forwarded to the Anti-Human Trafficking Unit.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account