Courts Not Bound To Mechanically Direct FIRs U/S 173(4) BNSS Merely Because Victim Belongs To SC/ST Community: Allahabad HC
Sparsh Upadhyay
10 March 2026 10:03 PM IST
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a Special Court or Magistrate is not automatically bound to direct registration of an FIR on an application filed under Section 173(4) BNSS merely because the applicant belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community.
A bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X added that the Court has to first evaluate the allegations placed before it and thereafter, decide whether it is appropriate to direct investigation by the police or to proceed with the matter as a complaint case.
With these observations, the single judge dismissed a criminal appeal filed by one Kusum Kannojiya, challenging a January 2026 order passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Azamgarh, rejecting her application under Section 173(4) BNSS.
The appellant contended that instead of directing the registration of an FIR, the trial court had conducted an inquiry into the allegations itself which was not proper.
It was further argued that Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Rule 5 of the 1995 Rules strictly prohibit a court from conducting such preliminary inquiries.
However, the High Court rejected this argument as it agreed with the State's submission that courts are not meant to act as mere post offices upon receiving an application under Section 173(4) BNSS.
The Court also examined the provisions referred to by the appellant to note that Section 4 deals with the punishment of public servants who deliberately fail to perform their duties, such as neglecting to register an FIR, failing to protect victims, or not filing charge sheets in time.
Similarly, the Court noted that Rule 5 mandates police officers to promptly register an FIR, while Section 18-A prohibits any preliminary inquiry or prior approval for FIR registration in cases under the Act.
The bench added that these provisions do not curtail or take away the judicial discretion of the Court while considering an application under Section 173(4) BNSS.
The High Court observed that these provisions are mainly intended to regulate the duties of police officers and other public servants concerning the registration and investigation of offences.
The Court categorically held that these provisions do not curtail or take away the judicial discretion of the Court while considering an application under Section 173(4) BNSS.
It added that the power conferred upon the Court under Section 173(4) BNSS is similar to the power earlier exercised under Section 156(3) CrPC, which is discretionary in nature.
"Before directing registration of an FIR and investigation, the Court is required to examine the allegations made in the application and apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case. If the Court finds that immediate police investigation is not necessary, it may treat the application as a complaint case and proceed in accordance with the procedure prescribed for complaint cases by recording the statements of the complainant and the witnesses", the bench noted.
The bench also referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020), where it was held that even in matters relating to offences under the SC-ST Act, the Court must examine whether the allegations disclose a prima facie offence connected with the caste of the victim.
Against this backdrop, the Court dismissed the petition.