XXX Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an Indian citizen, now residing at Australia. She filed a complaint against her husband through email to the Director General of Police, Kerala. It appears that the Director General of Police, Kerala forwarded the complaint to the jurisdictional police station i.e., Muttom police station. Thereafter, Muttom police refused to take action on the complaint stating that an unsigned complaint sent through email cannot be accepted and that since the petitioner is residing at Australia, her personal presence cannot be secured. The communication given by the Muttom Police is produced as Annexure A9. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Annexure A9.

(2.) I have heard Sri.T.B.Shajimon, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.E.C.Bineesh, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

(3.) The implementation of Sec. 173 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNSS'), marks a significant shift in how the police handles information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. Now, Zero FIR has been given statutory recognition by incorporating it in Sec. 173 of BNSS, which deals with the registration of FIR in cognizable cases. 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.