Difference Between FIR Registration Provisions Under S. 154 CrPC & S. 173 BNSS: Supreme Court Explains

The Supreme Court recently explained the difference between the provisions governing the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) and the conduct of preliminary inquiry under CrPC and its replacement Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

The Court observed that while Section 173(1) of BNSS is substantially similar to Section 154 CrPC regarding the recording of information, the additional provision of a preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) before registering an FIR in certain cases is a “significant departure”.

“However, sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS makes a significant departure from Section 154 of the CrPC. It provides that when information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence which is made punishable for 3 years or more but less than 7 years is received by an officer-in-charge of a police station, with the prior permission of a superior officer as mentioned therein, the police officer is empowered to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter.”

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan compared the two provisions while quashing an FIR registered by the Gujarat Police against Congress Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgarhi for his Instagram post featuring a video clip with the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno.”

Mandatory Registration of Information Relating to Cognizable Offences

Section 154 CrPC: Section 154(1) requires that “every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant.” In addition, every such recorded information must be signed by the informant and entered into a book in the prescribed form. Section 154 of the CrPC does not provide for making any preliminary inquiry, the Court noted.

Section 173 of BNSS: Section 173(1) of the BNSS is similar to Section 154 CrPC and states that “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.” If given orally, it must be reduced to writing, read over to the informant, signed, and recorded.

The Court noted that, under both section 154 of CrPC and Section 173(1) of BNSS, if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, it becomes mandatory to register the FIR. However, the court observed that section 173(3), which provides for preliminary inquiry in certain cases, is an exception to section 173(1).

“No further inquiry can be made by the police officer if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Therefore, subject to the exception carved out by sub-Section (3) of Section 173, which we will deal with later, it is mandatory to record the information in a book. Thus, it is mandatory to register the FIR if information received discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.”

Comparison of Preliminary Inquiry Provisions

The Court referred to the decision in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. to underscore that under Section 154 CrPC:

• If the information clearly discloses a cognizable offence, the registration of the FIR is mandatory.
• A preliminary inquiry is not permissible when the information discloses a cognizable offence.
• A preliminary inquiry may only be conducted, in limited circumstances, when the information does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry.

In contrast, the Court highlighted that sub-section (3) of Section 173 BNSS empowers the officer in charge—with prior permission from a superior officer (of at least rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police)—to conduct a preliminary inquiry when the offence is punishable with imprisonment of three years or more but less than seven years.

Under this provision, even if the information received discloses a cognizable offence, the officer may undertake a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists for proceeding.

“Sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS is an exception to sub-Section (1) of Section 173. In the category of cases covered by sub-Section (3), a police officer is empowered to make a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out for proceeding in the matter even if the information received discloses commission of any cognizable offence. That is very apparent as sub-Section (3) of Section 173 refers explicitly to receiving information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. Therefore, in a case where sub-Section (3) of Section 173 is applicable, even if the information pertaining to the commission of any cognizable offence is received, an inquiry can be conducted to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists for proceeding in the matter”, the Court explained.

Following this inquiry, if a prima facie case is found, the FIR must be registered immediately. If not, the informant must be informed so they can use the remedy under sub-section (4) of Section 173 and approach the Superintendent of Police.

Scope of Preliminary Inquiry

The Court noted that the inquiry under Section 154 CrPC is only to verify whether the information discloses a cognizable offence.

On the other hand, a discretion is provided under sub-section (3) of Section 173 BNSS to the officer to conduct a preliminary inquiry to establish a prima facie case. This is to avoid FIR registration in frivolous cases where the alleged offence, although cognizable, is punishable with imprisonment of three years or more but less than seven years, the Court noted.

The Court also warned that failure to use the discretion under Section 173(3) could lead to FIR registration against someone merely exercising the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a)..

In case of alleged offence under section 196 of the BNS, which is punishable for up to three years, the Court emphasised that the officer must read and understand the words to determine whether they amount to an offence. This, the Court said, does not amount to preliminary inquiry impermissible under sub-section (1) of Section 173 BNSS.

“The police officer to whom information is furnished will have to read or hear the words written or spoken, and by taking the same as correct, decide whether an offence under Section 196 is made out. Reading of written words, or hearing spoken words will be necessary to determine whether the contents make out a case of the commission of a cognizable offence. The same is the case with offences punishable under Sections 197, 299 and 302 of the BNS. Therefore, to ascertain whether the information received by an officer-in-charge of the police station makes out a cognizable offence, the officer must consider the meaning of the spoken or written words. This act on the part of the police officer will not amount to making a preliminary inquiry which is not permissible under sub-Section (1) of Section 173.”

Other reports about the judgment can be read here.

Case no. – Crl.A. No. 1545/2025

Case Title – Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment