The Tripura High Court has affirmed that the statutory duty under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to register a First Information Report (FIR) arises immediately upon receipt of information disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence, without any requirement for preliminary inquiry or discretion based on the identity of the alleged perpetrator, including when such allegations are made against police officers.
The court observed that the language of Section 173 BNSS is unambiguous in imposing a mandatory obligation on the officer-in-charge of a police station to record information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. It emphasized that the provision does not permit the police to withhold registration on grounds that the allegations involve their own personnel or that the complaint may be motivated by ulterior considerations.
Drawing a parallel with the preceding Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the court noted that the obligation under Section 154 CrPC to register an FIR in cases of cognizable offences had been consistently interpreted by the Supreme Court as mandatory and non-discretionary. It stated that Section 173 BNSS retains the same substantive intent and procedural rigour, leaving no scope for deviation where the ingredients of a cognizable offence are satisfied on the face of the complaint.
The judgment clarified that the preliminary verification permitted under the proviso to Section 173 BNSS applies only in cases where the information does not clearly disclose a cognizable offence and requires further scrutiny to determine whether such an offence is made out. However, once the information, on its face, discloses a cognizable offence, the duty to register the FIR becomes immediate and compulsive.
The court rejected the argument that registering an FIR against police personnel could undermine internal discipline or lead to vexatious proceedings. It held that such concerns, while understandable, cannot override the statutory mandate designed to ensure accountability and prevent the suppression of complaints against public servants acting under colour of authority.
It further observed that allowing police officers to delay or refuse FIR registration in cases involving allegations against their colleagues would create a dangerous loophole, effectively permitting self-investigation and undermining public trust in the criminal justice system. The court stressed that the legislature’s intent in enacting Section 173 BNSS was to strengthen, not weaken, the safeguards against abuse of power.
The Bench directed that all police stations must ensure strict compliance with Section 173 BNSS, particularly in cases where complaints are received against police officers. It advised that supervisory officers should monitor adherence to this duty and that any failure to register an FIR when legally required may attract departmental and legal consequences.
The ruling underscores that the protection afforded by procedural fairness under the BNSS does not extend to shielding alleged offenders from the initial step of criminal process — the registration of an FIR — when the legal threshold is met. The court reiterated that the integrity of the criminal justice system depends on the impartial application of procedural laws, regardless of the status or affiliation of the accused.
By affirming the mandatory nature of FIR registration under Section 173 BNSS even in sensitive cases involving police personnel, the Tripura High Court has reinforced the principle that no individual, including those entrusted with law enforcement duties, is exempt from the operation of criminal law when a cognizable offence is disclosed.