Section 173(4) of the BNSS (previously Section 156(3) CrPC) provides a statutory remedy for registration of a First Information Report when the police refuse to register a First Information Report. The informant may approach the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District, and if still his prayers go unanswered, he may invoke his remedy before the concerned Magistrate. If the Magistrate rejects the application, the order rejecting the application may be challenged before the Sessions Court, or the High Court by means of a criminal revision under Section 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
In a recent judgment of Sujal Vishwas Attavar and another vs. The State of Maharashtra 2026 INSC 442, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that invoking the writ jurisdiction praying for a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register a first information report would be premature if the statutory remedies available under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 are not exhausted, except for exceptional circumstances.
Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S. and Section 175(3) B.N.S.S. are being reproduced below for better and holistic analysis:
173(4). Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a policestation to recordthe information referred to in sub-section (1), may send the substance ofsuch information, in writing andby post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, ifsatisfied that such information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, shalleither investigate the case himself or direct an investigation tobe made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Sanhita, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence failing which such aggrieved person may make an application to the Magistrate.
175(3). Any Magistrate empowered under section 210 may, after considering the application supported by an affidavit made under sub-section (4) of section 173, and after making such inquiry as he thinks necessary and submission made in this regard by the police officer, order such an investigation as above-mentioned.
What are the requirements to be fulfilled before filing an application under Section 173(4) read with Section 175(3) B.N.S.S?
For registration of a First Information Report, one must directly approach the concerned police station as provided under Section 173 of the B.N.S.S. If one encounters refusal to register from the officer in charge at the concerned police station, Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. provides that the informant may send an application in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police for the concerned District. Even if the Superintendent of Police does not take any action, then one may invoke the remedy before the Magistrate under Section 173(4) read with Section 175(3) of the B.N.S.S.
What is the extent of the power of the Magistrate under Section 173(4) read with Section 175(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023?
When an aggrieved person approaches the concerned Magistrate alleging refusal by the police to register an FIR for a cognizable offence, the Magistrate’s duty is confined to examining whether the application discloses a cognizable offence or not. If it does, he must direct registration and consequent investigation. He is not required to conduct any detailed inquiry, nor to assume the functions of the police, whose primary responsibility is crime detection.
When such an application is moved before the Magistrate, the Magistrate need not at once proceed to take cognizance and before sending the same to the police for registration of FIR and investigation thereof, the Magistrate has to apply his mind to the allegations contained in the application.[1] He need not test the genuineness of allegations.[2]
The Magistrate ought not to work u/s 173(4) r/w 175(3) BNSS like a postman, but he has to examine whether, from the bare reading of the application filed u/s 173(4) r/w 175(3) BNSS (156(3) CrPC), prima facie commission of offence is disclosed or not.
In Sukhwasi v. State of U.P., the Allahabad High Court observed that applications under Section 156(3) CrPC are being filed in large numbers, and the provision must be invoked sparingly. A direction for registration of an FIR should be issued only in exceptional situations indicating miscarriage of justice. Since the law provides an alternative remedy of filing a complaint, recourse to Section 156(3) should not normally be encouraged. The Magistrate is not bound to allow such an application; the power is discretionary, not mandatory.
The new provisions allow the Magistrate to exercise discretion on the basis of consideration of the application supported by the affidavit. Along with the consideration of the application, the Magistrate must also consider the submission made by the police officer, usually in the form of a report regarding the said application. The Learned Magistrate, if he finds fit, may also conduct an inquiry in order to arrive at the conclusion as to whether it is an appropriate case to order an investigation or not.
What are the grounds on which the Order rejecting registration of First Information Report may be interfered with?
The High Court’s revisional power under Section 438 BNSS extends to examining the illegality, impropriety, and incorrectness of an order rejecting an application under Section 175(3) BNSS (Section 156(3) CrPC).
In Brijesh @ Sonu v. State of U.P[3], the Court clarified that rejection of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., i.e. currently under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., is not an interlocutory order, and therefore a criminal revision against it is maintainable before the High Court.
Essentially, the Revisional Court ought to see if the Magistrate has erred in exercising his jurisdiction. It is a common occurrence that the Magistrate is swayed by irrelevant circumstances in arriving at the conclusion.
3. Can the Magistrate treat an Applicaton under section 175(3) of the B.N.S.S. as a complaint?
Yes. It has been held in Mohan Shukla v. State of U.P.[4], and Ram Sabad v. Sessions Judge, Bahraich that the Magistrate, while dealing with an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, is empowered to treat it as a complaint. Such an application may be treated as a ‘complaint’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(h) of the B.N.S.S., and thereafter the Magistrate may proceed in accordance with Sections 223 to 227 BNSS. The question arises then, that what would be the factors that would resonate with the Magistrate to treat the application as a complaint, and not to direct the registration of the First Information Report.
An order treating an application as a complaint was challenged before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Amrendra Jaiprakash Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P.[5] on the ground that the Magistrate ought to function within the confines of law while treating an application as a complaint. The reasons provided by the Magistrate were that the complainant is capable of leading evidence on their own and that a police investigation is not necessary for a successful prosecution. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court set aside the order as the ground taken by the Trial Court was untenable, as the capacity to lead evidence on one’s own would have neither any correlation nor causation with the legal necessity to order an investigation.
Hence, it is incumbent upon the Magistrate to exercise his power in a judicious and sound manner. If an application is treated as a complaint, then it must subscribe to the basic requirements of a complaint. Furthermore, if a cognizable offence is made out, it is obligatory to order for an investigation, and one cannot treat it as a complaint even if a cognizable offence is made out.
Whether an order allowing an application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. is revisable or not?
When the Magistrate allows an application under Section 175(3) BNSS directing registration of an FIR and investigation, the accused has no right to challenge such an order. Criminal revision is not maintainable because an accused has no right to be heard at the pre-summoning stage and cannot claim any procedural protection before cognizance is taken. Consequently, an order allowing an application under Section 173(4) read with Section 175(3) BNSS (156(3) CrPC) is not revisable under Section 397 CrPC. This principle has been affirmed in Uma Shankar Pandey v. State of U.P. (2012), Father Thomas v. State of U.P. (FB, 2011), and Shyam Lal v. State of U.P. (2010). The accused has the remedy to challenge the First Information Report itself by means of a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
[1] Ram Babu Gupta vs. State of U.P., 2001 (43) ACC 50 ;See also; Yogendra Singh vs. State of U.P., 2003 (46) ACC 1008 (All) ; Paul George vs. State, 2002 SCC (Criminal) 340 4. Smt. Pushpa Devi vs. State of U.P., 2009 (6) ALJ 373 (Al[1]
[2] Ram Pal Singh vs. State of U.P., 2007 (1) J.Cr.C. 257 (All) 2. Dr. Rajendra Prasad vs. ACJM, Lucknow, 1996 JIC 5z 3. Roop Ram vs. State of U.P., 2009 (66) ACC 870 (All)
[3] CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 487 of 2018
[4] Criminal Misc. Application No. 7484 of 2004
[5] CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 1232 of 2025