No FIR? Know Your Legal Remedies and the Next Steps

     │ WHEN THE POLICE REFUSE TO REGISTER AN FIR │

                               A STEP-BY-STEP LEGAL GUIDE 

                                

Sidhant Malik

Advocate

28th  June 2026

The provisions of law are reiterated herein for better understanding:

154. Information in cognizable cases.—(1) 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; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed 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 prescribe in this behalf:

[Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, 2 [section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB], section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) 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 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, 1 [section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB], section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) 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 video graphed; (c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (5A) of section 164 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.

 (3) 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 Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.

156. Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case.—

(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.

 (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.

 (3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned.

STEPS TO BE TAKEN

v  You must first report the offence to the Officer-in-Charge under Section 154(1) [Section 173(1) BNSS, 2023]

v   If police refuse, escalate via Section 154(3) to the Superintendent of Police [Section 173(4) BNSS, 2023]

v  Only after these steps can one invoke Section 156(3) to ask a Magistrate to direct FIR registration. [Section 175(3) BNSS, 2023]

 

                                        QUESTIONS OF LAW

1.   Whether compliance with Section 154(1) CrPC is a mandatory statutory pre-condition before invoking the remedy under Section 154(3) CrPC?

Yes. Compliance with Section 154(1) CrPC, i.e., first approaching the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station for registration of information, is a mandatory statutory precondition before invoking the remedy under Section 154(3) CrPC. The remedy under Section 154(3) becomes available only when the Officer-in-Charge refuses or fails to record the information as contemplated under Section 154(1). Therefore, a complainant cannot bypass the Station House Officer and directly approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC.

The same has been held in the landmark judgment of “Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 287 [Para 31]

Para 31: We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit is so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.

Emphasis Supplied.

Further, In the matter of “Ranjit Singh Bath & Anr. v. UT Chandigarh, 2025 SC [LiveLaw] 329, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “before filing an Application under Section 156[3] [Now 173[3] of BNSS], Individual have to exhaust the remedies of Section 154[1] and 154[3]”.

Para 8:

Sub-Sections (1) and (3) of Section 154 of the CRPC are the two remedies available for setting the criminal law in motion. Therefore, this Court held that before a complainant chooses to adopt a remedy under Section 156(3) of the CRPC, he must exhaust his remedies under sub-Sections (1) and (3) of Section 154 of the CRPC and he must make those averments in the complaint and produce the documents in support. However, in this case, the second respondent did not exhaust the remedies. In this view of the matter, we find that both the learned Magistrate and the High Court have completely ignored the binding decision of this Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava.

Emphasis Supplied

2.   Whether Section 154(3) CrPC contemplates an independent representation by the complainant to the Superintendent of Police, separate from the complaint submitted under Section 154(1) CrPC?

 

Yes. Section 154(3) CrPC envisages a separate and independent written representation addressed to the Superintendent of Police. Such representation must specifically state that the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence had earlier been furnished to the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station under Section 154(1), but the officer refused or failed to register the FIR. It is not sufficient to merely forward or reproduce the original complaint; the representation must clearly disclose the refusal or inaction of the Station House Officer, thereby invoking the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3).

 

3. Whether mere endorsement, forwarding, marking, or routing of a complaint by the Police Station to the Superintendent of Police amounts to compliance with Section 154(3) CrPC?

 

No. A mere endorsement, marking, routing, or forwarding of a complaint by the police station to the office of the Superintendent of Police does not constitute compliance with Section 154(3) CrPC. The statutory obligation rests upon the complainant to independently submit the substance of the information, in writing, to the Superintendent of Police, either by post or through direct submission, after the Officer-in-Charge has refused or failed to register the FIR under Section 154(1).

 

The High of Chhattisgarh have categorically dealt with these issues in the matter “Parshant Vashishta and Other Versus State of Chhattisgarh 2023 SCC OnLine Chh 185” in para 14 and 18 has held:

 

14. Sub-section (3) of Section 154 of the CrPC provides the procedure to be followed by informant. A careful perusal of subsection (3) of Section 154 would show that on refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to Section 154(1) of the CrPC, the person aggrieved may send the substance of such information in writing by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned, who if satisfied that such information discloses commission of cognizable offence either investigate himself or direct an officer sub-ordinate to him to investigate in the manner provided by the CrPC. What is required is refusal on the part of the Station House Officer to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) which will enable the person aggrieved to send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police.

Unless there is express or implied refusal on the part of the SHO to register FIR in case of cognizable offence, the person aggrieved may not be justified in filing application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, as the object is that if the SHO refuses to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the CrPC, then he may approach the higher authority which is the Superintendent of Police of the district by way of an independent/separate application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, who in case of refusal to record the information disclosing commission of cognizable offence, shall investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him in the manner provided by the CrPC and such officer shall have all the powers of Station House Officer, as such, the refusal on the part of the SHO to register FIR in cognizable offence is mandatory for making an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.

 

18. Reverting to the facts of the case in light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) followed in Vikram Johar (supra) and further followed in Babu Venkatesh (supra), it is quite vivid that respondent No. 3 made a complaint under Section 154(1) of the CrPC before the Station House Officer, Police Station Nevai, District Durg on 4-12-2016. However, on being scanned the original record, no application under Section 154(3) of the CrPC is said to have been made by respondent No. 3 except the endorsement of the said application under Section 154(1) on 6-12- 2016 to S.P. Durg which in our considered opinion cannot be said to be the compliance of Section 154(3) of the CrPC. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) followed in Vikram Johar (supra) and further followed in Babu Venkatesh (supra) have clearly held that applications under Section 154(1) & (3) are required to be made separately and both aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed, but in the instant case, though the application under Section 154(1) has been filed, but no application under Section 154(3) is said to have been filed clearly stating that on refusal by the Station House Officer such application is being made. Refusal is sine qua non for making application maintainable under Section 154(3) of the CrPC. Respondent No. 3 got the application under Section 154(1) of the CrPC endorsed to the Office of the Superintendent of Police two days after making application on 4-12-2016 which cannot be said to be the sufficient compliance of Section 154(3) of the CrPC. Registration of FIR involves serious and devastating consequences on life and liberty of a person against whom the FIR is directed to be made, therefore, strict compliance of Section 154(3) of the CrPC is required to be made which is sine qua non for maintaining an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC and merely endorsing a copy of application under Section 154 (1) of the CrPC to the Superintendent of Police cannot be said to be the strict compliance of Section 154(3) of the CrPC, there has to be a separate and independent application under Section 154(3) of the CrPC after refusal by the SHO to register FIR. Thus, there is total noncompliance of Section 154(3) of the CrPC, as no documents have been filed by the complainant in support of the averments made in paragraph 8 of the application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.                 

 

Emphasis Supplied

4. Whether an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is maintainable in the absence of strict compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC?

 

No. An application under Section 156(3) CrPC is not maintainable unless the complainant has strictly complied with the mandatory requirements of Sections 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC. As held by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., the complainant must first exhaust the statutory remedies available before the police authorities prior to invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). Additionally, the application must be supported by a duly sworn affidavit affirming such compliance, so as to ensure accountability and prevent abuse of the judicial process.

 

However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in recent judgement of “Anurag Bhatnagar v State of NCT Delhi 2025 SCC Online SC 1514, took a different view and held, In Para 33; the Magistrate ought not to ordinarily entertain an application under Section 156(3) CrPC directly unless the informant has availed and exhausted his remedies provided under Section 154(3) CrPC, but as the Magistrate is otherwise competent under Section 156(3) CrPC to direct the registration of an FIR if the allegations in the application/complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, we are of the opinion that the order so passed by the Magistrate would not be without jurisdiction and would not stand vitiated on this count.”

In the said judgment of Anurag Bhatnagar [Supra], the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 29, also held that, it is well recognized in law that the person aggrieved must first exhaust the alternative remedies available to him in law before approaching the court of law. In other words, he cannot ordinarily approach the court directly.

However, this precedent was based on the fact of the case and does not overrule the law set out by Priyanka Srivastava [Supra]. The judgment in Priyanka Srivastava was not referred to in Anurag Bhatnagar, and the judgment was perhaps not placed before the court at all.

 

│Supreme Court│ Chhattisgarh High Court │FIR│ Police│Sidhant Malik│