S.173(3) BNSS Safeguard Against Mechanical Registration Of FIRs On Vague & Doubtful Allegations : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is intended to prevent the mechanical registration of FIRs based on vague, speculative or doubtful allegations, even where such allegations are framed as cognizable offences.Highlighting the legislative shift from the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) regime, the Court explained that Section 173(3) BNSS introduces an additional procedural filter before registration of FIRs in certain categories of offences.The provision allows police, with prior approval of a superior officer, to conduct a preliminary enquiry in cases punishable between 3 to 7 years, even where the complaint ostensibly discloses a cognizable offence.Unlike Section 154 CrPC, where FIR registration is mandatory if a cognizable offence is disclosed, Section 173(3) BNSS permits scrutiny beyond the mere form of allegations, enabling police to assess whether a prima facie case truly exists."Thus, the legislative intent behind incorporating sub-section (3) of Section 173 appears to be to provide a safeguard against mechanical registration of FIRs in cases where the allegations, though couched in the language of a cognizable offence, may in substance be vague, speculative or inherently doubtful," the Court observed.The Court observed that though there is no hard and fast criterion for determining when such prima facie satisfaction may arise, "the very object of permitting a preliminary enquiry is to prevent initiation of criminal proceedings on the basis of frivolous or speculative allegations."The Court quashed an FIR lodged by the Rajasthan Police against a senior media executive, terming the complaint a “fictional story woven meticulously on vague and speculative allegations”.Factual BackgroundThe appellant, Ashish Dave, was serving as Channel Head of Zee Rajasthan and Zee 24 Ghanta, channels owned by Zee Media Corporation Limited. In September 2025, following a fallout between Dave and the management, the company filed a criminal complaint before the Ashok Nagar Police Station in Jaipur.The complaint alleged that Dave had engaged in unauthorised financial dealings, misused his position, demanded monetary favours from external entities by threatening negative media coverage, and broadcast defamatory or coercive content to exert pressure. It was also claimed that his actions had caused reputational and financial harm to the company.Based on these allegations, the police registered an FIR invoking provisions corresponding to extortion, cheating and criminal intimidation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.Dave challenged the FIR before the Rajasthan High Court under Section 528 BNSS, contending that the allegations were false, vague and motivated by malice following his termination. The High Court, however, declined to quash the FIR, observing that the matter could not be examined in detail at the preliminary stage.Supreme Court's FindingsAllowing the appeal, the Supreme Court found that the complaint was “absolutely bereft of particulars” and failed to disclose the basic ingredients of any cognizable offence. The Court noted that the complaint did not identify a single victim, specify any particular incident, or refer to any concrete instance of alleged extortion or coercion. Even the State's counter-affidavit, the Court observed, was equally vague and unsupported by material particulars.The Bench criticised the manner in which the FIR was registered, remarking that the police acted with “unusual expediency” and without undertaking even a basic verification of the allegations. It observed that such a complaint, if made by an ordinary citizen, would not have resulted in the registration of an FIR."We are constrained to observe that had it been an ordinary citizen who had approached the police with a complaint containing such vague allegations, the FIR would never have been registered. However, the alacrity with which the officials of Police Station Ashok Nagar proceeded to entertain the complaint of respondent No. 2-complainant-company and registered the FIR speaks volumes about the influence which the complainant wields."In the present case, the Court noted that all alleged offences fell within the three to seven year punishment bracket, squarely attracting Section 173(3) BNSS. Despite this, the police failed to conduct any preliminary enquiry and proceeded to register the FIR straightaway.Given the absence of basic details in the complaint, the Court held that a preliminary enquiry was clearly warranted to determine whether any prima facie case existed.Since the complainant-company was a reputed media house(Zee Media), the onus was greater upon it to clearly set out the relevant details and material particulars prima facie establishing the alleged criminal acts attributed to the appellant, the Court stated. The Court noted that even the counter-affidavit filed by the State of Rajasthan was bereft of details.Holding that the continuation...

S.173(3) BNSS Safeguard Against Mechanical Registration Of FIRs On Vague & Doubtful Allegations : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

S.173(3) BNSS Safeguard Against Mechanical Registration Of FIRs On Vague & Doubtful Allegations : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers