Police Refusing to Register Your FIR? The BNSS Escalation Ladder, Step by Step

You go to the police station to report a theft, a cheque fraud or an assault, and are told to come back later, to “settle it outside” or to file a civil case instead. Many people give up at that point. They should not, because the law gives a ladder of remedies, and since 1 July 2024 its rungs have new numbers and some new conditions. This article explains what to do when police are refusing to register your FIR, step by step under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), what the Supreme Court has said about each step, and where the new law is stricter than the old.

Step 1: Report the Offence at the Police Station (section 173(1) and (2))

Section 173(1) BNSS provides that information about a cognizable offence may be given orally or electronically to the officer in charge of a police station, irrespective of the area where the offence was committed. That wording is the statutory home of the “zero FIR”: a station that lacks territorial jurisdiction must still record the information and then transfer it to the one that has it. If the information is given orally, it is reduced to writing, read over to the informant and signed. If it is given electronically, it is recorded on being signed by the informant within three days.

Under section 173(2), a copy of the recorded information is to be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant or the victim. The old Code gave the free copy to the informant only. In practice, ask for the copy and for the FIR number before you leave the station; a refusal to give either is evidence you will need later.

Step 1A: The New Preliminary Enquiry (section 173(3))

The most important change in the section is sub-section (3), which has no counterpart in the old Code. Where the information concerns a cognizable offence punishable with three years or more but less than seven, the officer in charge may, with the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence, either hold a preliminary enquiry within fourteen days to see whether a prima facie case exists, or proceed to investigate where one does.

This must be read against the leading decision on the old law. In Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, a Constitution Bench held that registration of an FIR is mandatory where the information discloses a cognizable offence, and that a preliminary enquiry is permitted only to test whether a cognizable offence is disclosed, in categories such as matrimonial and family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption cases and cases of abnormal delay. The enquiry was not a licence to test the truth of the allegation.

In Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025 INSC 410, 28 March 2025, Oka and Bhuyan JJ.), the Supreme Court contrasted the two regimes. Under the old Code, as the Court read it, a preliminary enquiry was available only where the information did not disclose a cognizable offence. Under section 173(3), an enquiry may be held even where an offence is disclosed, but only for the three-to-seven-year category and only with senior permission, and the Court treated the power as discretionary. It added that, for allegations touching speech offences protected by Article 19(2) of the Constitution, a preliminary enquiry is appropriate. That last point arose from the facts of the case and should not be generalised.

The effect is a real, but narrow, shift. Commentators describe it as a move from mandate to discretion. Defenders say it filters out weak complaints; critics reply that a fourteen-day enquiry is an easy way for a reluctant station to delay registration. The correct practical reading is that a station may hold a short enquiry in this category with permission, but may not use it to avoid registering a plain case, and that a station which sits silent beyond fourteen days has no answer.

Step 2: Write to the Superintendent of Police (section 173(4))

If the officer in charge refuses to record the information, the first statutory remedy when police refuse to register an FIR is to approach the Superintendent of Police under section 173(4) BNSS. The aggrieved person may send the substance of the information in writing to the Superintendent. If the Superintendent is satisfied that it discloses a cognizable offence, he must either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation by a subordinate officer, who then has the powers of an officer in charge of the station. The provision corresponds to section 154(3) of the old Code.

Practical points for this step are simple but decisive. Write a dated, signed letter that narrates the facts, names the offence as far as you can, states the date you went to the station and what you were told, and attaches whatever proof you have. Send it in a manner that gives proof of delivery, whether by registered post, by delivery against acknowledgment or through any electronic channel the district police has notified. Keep the receipt: the Supreme Court now treats this letter as a precondition to the next step.

Step 3: Apply to the Magistrate (section 175(3))

If the Superintendent of Police does not act on the complaint, the next remedy is to approach the Magistrate under section 175(3) BNSS. Section 175(3) BNSS empowers a Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance under section 210 to order an investigation, after considering an application supported by an affidavit made under section 173(4), after making such enquiry as he thinks necessary, and after considering the submissions made by the police officer. It corresponds to section 156(3) of the old Code, but with three new safeguards.

The case law on the old Code explains the origin of these requirements. Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 409, held that a Magistrate has implied powers under section 156(3) to direct the registration of an FIR and to monitor the investigation, that a complainant should first approach the Superintendent and then the Magistrate, and that the High Court should not ordinarily be approached by writ where those remedies exist. In Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 287 (19 March 2015, Misra and Pant JJ.), the Court, concerned at the misuse of the provision, required an application under section 156(3) to be supported by the applicant’s sworn affidavit and to show prior recourse to the police and the Superintendent.

The Supreme Court has now construed the BNSS provision. In Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 139, Pardiwala and Mahadevan JJ.), it held that section 175(3) adds the safeguards of an affidavit, a prior application to the Superintendent which must be furnished to the Magistrate, a power of enquiry and a duty to hear the police before directing an FIR. The Court stressed that a Magistrate must apply his mind, and set aside an order made mechanically. Reports of the judgment give differing dates for its pronouncement, in January and February 2025, so we cite it by its neutral citation only.

What this means for an applicant is a compact checklist. Attach your application to the Superintendent and proof of its delivery; attach the information you gave the station and any copy you were given; swear a proper affidavit; and be ready to answer the police officer’s response, since the Magistrate will now hear it. An application that is silent on the Superintendent step risks dismissal at the threshold.

Complaints Against a Public Servant (section 175(4))

Where the complaint is against a public servant for an act said to have been done in the discharge of official duties, section 175(4) adds that the Magistrate may order investigation only after receiving a report from the officer superior to the public servant on the facts and circumstances, and after considering the public servant’s assertions about the situation that led to the incident. In XXX v. State of Kerala (2026 INSC 88, decided 27 January 2026, Datta and Manmohan JJ.), the Supreme Court held that section 175(4) is not a free-standing route: a complaint under it must also satisfy the section 175(3) conditions, including the affidavit and prior resort to the Superintendent, which the Court described as a mandatory precondition. The superior officer’s report and the hearing are an additional layer. It follows the earlier insistence in Priyanka Srivastava.

Step 4: The Alternative, a Complaint to the Magistrate (section 223)

Section 175(3) is a request that the Magistrate send the matter to the police. A separate route is a private complaint to the Magistrate, under section 223 BNSS, the counterpart of section 200 of the old Code, in which the Magistrate examines the complainant and witnesses and proceeds without a police investigation. It suits cases where the evidence is documentary and in the complainant’s hands, and is weak where the evidence lies with the police or the accused. The BNSS adds a proviso that no cognizance is to be taken on a complaint without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard, which makes the route slower than before.

Step 5: The High Court, as a Last Resort

If the police continue refusing to register an FIR despite the remedies under sections 173(4) and 175(3) BNSS, a writ petition before the High Court may be considered in appropriate cases. But in Sakiri Vasu the Supreme Court discouraged it where the Superintendent and Magistrate remedies are available, and the BNSS now builds those remedies into a statutory sequence. The High Court is therefore a realistic forum mainly where the earlier steps have been taken and have failed, or where there is a real emergency that they cannot meet. Where an FIR has been registered and an accused person wants it quashed, the route is different and is explained in our guide to quashing an FIR under section 528 BNSS.

Mistakes to Avoid

• Skipping the Superintendent. After Om Prakash Ambadkar and XXX v. State of Kerala, this is the commonest reason for a Magistrate application to fail.
• A generic affidavit. It should state the facts and the steps taken, in the applicant’s own words.
• Confusing the two roads. Section 175(3) asks the Magistrate to direct the police; section 223 asks the Magistrate to try the complaint himself.

Open Questions

Three points are unsettled. First, how far Imran Pratapgadhi displaces Lalita Kumari outside the speech context is yet to be worked out. Second, the stage at which a Magistrate’s order under section 175(3) may be challenged is still developing: reports of two Bombay High Court decisions suggest revision under section 438 BNSS before the FIR is registered and a petition under section 528 afterwards, but we have not read those decisions and the point should be checked. Third, how the accused’s hearing under the section 223 proviso affects the speed of private complaints will become clear only as decisions arrive.

Frequently Asked Questions

What can I do if the police refuse to register my FIR?

Write to the Superintendent of Police under section 173(4) BNSS. If nothing happens, apply to the Magistrate under section 175(3) with an affidavit and a copy of that application.

Can I file a zero FIR at any police station?

Yes. Section 173(1) allows information about a cognizable offence to be given at any police station irrespective of where the offence occurred; the station must record it and transfer it.

Do I need an affidavit to approach the Magistrate?

Yes. Section 175(3) requires the application to be supported by an affidavit, and the Supreme Court insisted on an affidavit even under the old Code.

Can the police hold a preliminary enquiry before registering an FIR?

In a limited class of cases. For offences punishable with three years or more but less than seven, section 173(3) lets an officer, with the permission of an officer not below Deputy Superintendent rank, hold an enquiry within fourteen days. It is permissive, not mandatory.

Is a writ petition to the High Court a good first step?

Usually not. The Supreme Court has said that where the Superintendent and Magistrate remedies exist, the High Court should ordinarily be approached after they are used.

Sources

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, sections 173, 175, 210 and 223 — India Code; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, sections 154, 156 and 200 (repealed).
• Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1 (Constitution Bench), AIR 2014 SC 187.
• Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 287, 19 March 2015 — report.
• Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 409 — judgment.
• Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 139 — report.
• Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 410, 28 March 2025 — report; LiveLaw report on section 154 CrPC and section 173 BNSS.
• XXX v. State of Kerala, 2026 INSC 88, 27 January 2026 — report.