Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 173
Information in cognizable cases
(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where the offence is committed, may be given orally or by electronic communication to an officer in charge of a police station, and if given—
(i) orally, it shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it;
(ii) by electronic communication, it shall be taken on record by him on being signed within three days by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may by rules prescribe in this behalf: Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under section 64, section 65, section 66, section 67, section 68, section 69, section 70, section 71, section 74, section 75, section 76, section 77, section 78, section 79 or section 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer: Provided further that—
(a) in the event that the person against whom an offence under section 64, section 65, section 66, section 67, section 68, section 69, section 70, section 71, section 74, section 75, section 76, section 77, section 78, section 79 or section 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is alleged to have been committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place of such person's choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be;
(b) the recording of such information shall be videographed;
(c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (6) of section 183 as soon as possible.
(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant or the victim.
(3) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in section 175, on receipt of information relating to the commission of any cognizable offence, which is made punishable for three years or more but less than seven years, the officer in charge of the police station may with the prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, considering the nature and gravity of the offence,—
(i) proceed to conduct preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter within a period of fourteen days; or
(ii) proceed with investigation when there exists a prima facie case.
(4) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1), may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be 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.
Why this exists
This provision descends from Section 154 of the old Criminal Procedure Code, which required police to register a First Information Report (FIR) for cognizable crimes. Courts had long struggled with police refusing to register complaints, delaying justice or protecting the powerful. The new additions—electronic reporting, disability safeguards, and a formal preliminary enquiry option—respond to modern needs: digital complaints, protection of vulnerable victims (especially in sexual offence cases), and a way to filter out false or frivolous complaints in the 3-7 year offence range without diluting the core duty to register genuine crimes.
How courts read it
The Supreme Court's Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP (2014) held that registering an FIR is mandatory once information discloses a cognizable offence, but permitted a limited preliminary enquiry in specific categories (like matrimonial disputes, commercial disputes, or long-delayed complaints) to check genuineness before registration. Sub-section (3) appears to codify this balance into law by allowing a formal 14-day preliminary enquiry for mid-range offences. Earlier cases under the old Section 154, including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, also shaped how courts scrutinize FIRs for abuse of process.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Police can freely refuse to register any complaint if they think it's weak.
Fact: For truly cognizable offences, registration is normally mandatory; the limited 14-day preliminary enquiry option only applies to offences punishable by 3-7 years, and even then requires senior officer approval. - Myth: You must go in person to file an FIR.
Fact: The law now expressly allows reporting a cognizable offence through electronic communication, which must be signed within three days. - Myth: If police refuse to file your FIR, you have no options left.
Fact: You can send a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, and if that fails too, approach a Magistrate.