Can Police Refuse to Register an FIR? Remedies Under BNSS
Introduction
You go to a police station and report what appears to be a serious criminal offence.
Instead of registering an FIR, the officer says:
“We will first look into the matter.”
Or:
“This happened in another police-station area.”
Or:
“This is a civil dispute.”
Or simply:
“No FIR will be registered.”
Can police legally refuse?
The answer depends primarily on one question:
Do the facts disclosed by the informant reveal a cognizable offence?
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which has governed criminal procedure since 1 July 2024, information relating to a cognizable offence is dealt with principally under Section 173.
As a general rule, where information discloses a cognizable offence, the police cannot arbitrarily refuse to record it.
However, the BNSS has introduced an important new qualification.
For certain cognizable offences punishable with imprisonment of three years or more but less than seven years, Section 173(3) permits a limited preliminary inquiry, with prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, and the inquiry must ordinarily be completed within 14 days.
The BNSS also creates a structured remedy when the Station House Officer refuses to record the information:
Police Station → Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) → Magistrate under Section 175(3).
In January 2026, the Supreme Court confirmed that approaching the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) is ordinarily a mandatory prerequisite before invoking the Magistrate’s jurisdiction under Section 175(3).
Understanding these provisions is essential for anyone facing refusal or delay in FIR registration.
What Is an FIR?
An FIR, or First Information Report, is the formal police record of information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence.
Section 173(1) BNSS provides that such information may be given:
- orally; or
- through electronic communication,
and may be given irrespective of the area where the offence was committed.
If given orally, the police must reduce it to writing.
If submitted electronically, the information must be signed by the informant within three days for it to be formally taken on record.
The provision is important because it also gives statutory recognition to what is commonly known as Zero FIR.
What Is a Cognizable Offence?
A cognizable offence is one in which police are legally empowered to arrest without warrant, subject to the separate statutory requirements governing arrest.
Examples often include serious offences such as:
- robbery;
- rape;
- serious hurt;
- kidnapping;
- certain forms of cheating;
- serious cybercrime;
- and other offences classified as cognizable under the relevant Schedule or special law.
Whether an offence is cognizable depends on its statutory classification.
The complainant’s description alone does not determine the issue.
For example, simply saying:
“He cheated me.”
does not automatically require an FIR if the underlying facts disclose only a contractual dispute without the ingredients of criminal cheating.
Police must examine the factual allegations and the applicable offence.
Can Police Refuse an FIR if a Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed?
As a general rule, no.
The Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh established the foundational principle that where information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, registration of an FIR is mandatory.
That principle continues to remain relevant under the BNSS.
In Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat, decided on 28 March 2025, the Supreme Court considered the new BNSS regime and explained that police must assess whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose a cognizable offence. The police are not supposed to determine at the FIR stage whether the complainant will ultimately prove the allegations at trial.
However, the BNSS has introduced a statutory preliminary-inquiry mechanism in a defined category.
That is the important modern qualification.
Section 173(3): The New Preliminary-Inquiry Rule
Section 173(3) applies where the reported cognizable offence is punishable with imprisonment of:
three years or more, but less than seven years.
In such a case, the officer in charge may, after obtaining prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, and considering the nature and gravity of the offence:
- conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists; or
- proceed directly with investigation where a prima facie case exists.
Any preliminary inquiry under this provision must be completed within 14 days.
This is one of the most important differences between the old CrPC framework and the BNSS.
Does Section 173(3) Allow Police to Delay Every FIR for 14 Days?
No.
This is a common misunderstanding.
Section 173(3) does not create a universal 14-day waiting period for all FIRs.
It applies only where:
- the information relates to a cognizable offence;
- the punishment falls within the specified three-to-less-than-seven-year range;
- the nature and gravity justify preliminary inquiry; and
- prior permission is obtained from an officer not below DySP rank.
Police cannot simply tell every complainant:
“We have 14 days before deciding whether to register your FIR.”
That is not what the provision says.
Supreme Court’s 2026 Clarification on Section 173(3)
The Supreme Court further examined the new provision in February 2026.
It explained that Section 173(3) represents a deliberate legislative departure from the earlier CrPC regime.
Under the old Lalita Kumari framework, a preliminary inquiry was generally limited to determining whether the information disclosed a cognizable offence.
Under Section 173(3) BNSS, however, the legislature expressly allows a preliminary inquiry in the specified three-to-seven-year category to determine whether a prima facie case for proceeding exists.
The Court nevertheless treated this as a defined statutory exception, not an unrestricted police power to avoid FIR registration.
What Is the Purpose of Preliminary Inquiry?
The inquiry is intended to prevent mechanical criminal proceedings in cases where allegations may require limited verification.
For example, allegations may arise from:
- commercial transactions;
- professional disputes;
- complex documentation;
- allegations lacking basic particulars;
- or circumstances where the criminal character is not immediately clear.
The February 2026 Supreme Court decision itself observed that where a complaint was highly indeterminate and lacked basic particulars, the police ought to have considered the option available under Section 173(3).
But preliminary inquiry is not supposed to become a full investigation or trial before registration.
What If the Allegations Clearly Disclose a Serious Cognizable Offence?
Where the allegations clearly disclose a cognizable offence outside the limited Section 173(3) preliminary-inquiry framework, police ordinarily cannot refuse FIR registration merely because:
- the accused denies the allegation;
- they think the complainant may be lying;
- evidence has not yet been collected;
- witnesses have not yet been examined;
- or conviction is uncertain.
Investigation exists precisely to determine whether the allegation can ultimately be proved.
Can Police Refuse Because the Incident Happened in Another Area?
Territorial jurisdiction should not be used as a reason to reject information concerning a cognizable offence.
Section 173 expressly provides that information may be given irrespective of the area where the offence was committed.
This is the statutory foundation for Zero FIR.
The Government has also described Zero FIR as allowing a citizen to report a cognizable offence at any police station regardless of jurisdiction.
The receiving police station can then transfer the matter to the jurisdictionally appropriate station.
Example: Zero FIR
A woman is assaulted while travelling through another State.
She reaches her home city and goes to the nearest police station.
Police should not simply say:
“The offence happened 600 kilometres away. Go there.”
Where Section 173 applies, the information can be recorded and subsequently transferred to the appropriate police station.
The purpose is to avoid loss of time and evidence.
Can Police Refuse Because the Matter Is “Civil”?
Sometimes police correctly refuse criminal registration because the dispute truly is civil.
For example:
- unpaid invoice;
- contractual breach;
- property boundary dispute;
- failed commercial transaction.
But merely because civil remedies also exist does not mean criminal law can never apply.
A transaction may have both civil and criminal consequences.
For example, where dishonest intention existed from the beginning and the statutory ingredients of cheating are made out, the presence of a civil remedy does not automatically prevent criminal proceedings.
The correct question is:
Do the facts disclose the ingredients of a cognizable criminal offence?
Breach of Contract vs Cheating
This distinction commonly causes FIR disputes.
Suppose A buys goods from B and later fails to pay.
That may be a civil recovery dispute.
But suppose A never intended to pay, used false documents and induced B to hand over goods through deception from the outset.
Those facts may potentially disclose criminal cheating.
Police should analyse the factual allegations rather than use the label “civil dispute” mechanically.
Can Police Refuse Because There Is “No Proof”?
An FIR is not a conviction.
At the registration stage, the informant ordinarily does not have to prove the entire case as though conducting a trial.
Evidence is collected during investigation.
The police can require basic facts sufficient to understand the allegation.
But demanding:
- complete forensic evidence;
- all witness statements;
- certified documents;
- or proof beyond reasonable doubt
before even recording a cognizable offence would confuse the registration stage with the trial stage.
Does the Police Have to Believe the Complainant?
Not necessarily.
FIR registration means only that information disclosing a cognizable offence has been formally recorded.
The investigation may later conclude that:
- the allegations were true;
- the allegations were false;
- evidence is insufficient;
- the offence is different from originally alleged;
- or no prosecution should proceed.
Registration and proof are separate questions.
FIR Does Not Automatically Mean Arrest
Another misconception is:
“If FIR is registered, police must arrest the accused.”
Incorrect.
The BNSS separately regulates arrest.
Police must satisfy the legal requirements governing arrest rather than treating every FIR as an automatic arrest warrant.
This distinction matters because fear of automatic arrest should not be used as a reason to refuse FIR registration where law requires it.
Can Information Be Sent by Email or Electronically?
Yes.
Section 173 allows information concerning a cognizable offence to be communicated electronically.
The Ministry of Home Affairs reiterated in August 2026 that electronic information must be signed by the informant within three days for it to be formally taken on record.
