Theft Worth Below ₹5,000 Is Non-Cognizable Offence Under BNS; Police Can't Register FIR Without Magistrate's Permission: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has emphasised that theft of property worth below ₹5,000 is a non-cognizable offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the police authorities cannot register an FIR with respect to the same without the Magistrate's prior permission.In this regard, Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa stated,“There is no doubt that the offence under Section 303(2) BNS is a non-cognizable offence. In such circumstances, the police shall follow procedure laid down under Section 174 of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, which mandates the police to obtain appropriate direction from the concerned Magistrate, to proceed with investigation.”The ruling comes in a criminal petition, whereby the petitioner was initially accused of sand theft worth Rs.1500/- and whose FIR was mechanically registered by the police without obtaining appropriate direction from the concerned Magistrate. The petitioner sought quashing of proceedings pending against him for the offences punishable under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act). Under Section 303(2) of BNS, when the value of stolen property does not exceed Rs.5,000/- and where such property is restored or returned, and if it is the first conviction, the punishment prescribed is only community service. Section 21(1) of MMDR Act prescribes penalties for contravention of provisions of the MMDR Act, with Section 22 explicitly providing that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act except upon a written complaint by a person authorised by the Central Government or State Government.The petitioner contended the authorities had found the sand in one trailer attached to the tractor, with the other tractor empty, and as the worth of property was neither mentioned in the complaint nor the charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted that the case was not cognizable and the police had wrongly registered the case and filed a report. He also contended that the present case was filed against him on the basis of confession of a co-accused, which is a corroborative and not substantive piece of evidence. The petitioner also argued that Section 22 of MMDR Act— which mandates that an authorised officer from the mining department can file only a private complaint, was violated.On the contrary, the State argued that the worth of sand as per the Tahsildar report was Rs.1,500/-, and that the police had not obtained the Court's permission to conduct investigation in the non-cognizable offence.Against this backdrop, the Single Judge noted,“Coming to the present case, as rightly conceded by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the value of stolen sand is Rs.1,500/- and it is a non-cognizable offence. The police mechanically registered the FIR against the petitioner without obtaining appropriate direction from the concerned Magistrate and proceeded with investigation and filed chargesheet, which is a clear abuse of process of law…”Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the case against the petitioner. However, the Court clarified that the same does not preclude the competent authority under MMDR Act to take further action in accordance with the law.Case Details:Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION No.10465 of 2025Case Title: P RASHIDULLA v. . THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and Anr.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Theft Worth Below ₹5,000 Is Non-Cognizable Offence Under BNS; Police Can't Register FIR Without Magistrate's Permission: AP High Court

Saahas Arora

Tags