When police can hold off on your FIR — the preliminary inquiry rule

The new BNSS lets the police run a 14-day preliminary inquiry before deciding whether to register an FIR — but only for cognizable offences punishable with three to seven years' imprisonment, and only with senior officer permission. The Lalita Kumari rule has been codified, and tightened.

You file a complaint at the police station. The SHO listens, takes the paper, but does not register an FIR. He says the matter needs a preliminary inquiry, and that it will take "some time." A week later, no FIR has been registered. You call. You are told the inquiry is still on. Three weeks pass. Still no FIR.

Until 1 July 2024, this scenario sat in a grey zone. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 said nothing about a preliminary inquiry; the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1 read one in, narrowly, for a handful of categories. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has now codified the preliminary inquiry as a statutory power — and put limits on it that did not exist before. Section 173(3) of the BNSS is short, technical, and worth understanding before you walk back into the police station to ask what is happening.

The law in plain English

Section 173 of the BNSS [Section 154 of the CrPC, 1973] is the registration-of-FIR provision. Sub-section (1) carries forward the old duty — every information of a cognizable offence given to the officer in charge of a police station must be reduced to writing, read back, and signed. Sub-section (2) preserves the informant's right to a free copy of the FIR. Sub-section (4) carries forward the right to escalate a refusal to the Superintendent of Police, the old Section 154(3) CrPC route.

Sub-section (3) is the new provision. It says, in substance: where the cognizable offence reported is punishable with imprisonment of three years or more but less than seven years, the officer in charge of the police station may, with the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, and after considering the nature and seriousness of the offence, either (a) proceed to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding, within a period of fourteen days, or (b) proceed with the investigation if there is prima facie evidence. In all other cases — that is, in cognizable offences punishable with seven years or more, including murder, rape, dacoity, kidnapping for ransom, and dowry death — the duty to register the FIR is immediate. Sub-section (3) does not apply to that band of offences at all.

This is a substantial change. The Lalita Kumari framework allowed preliminary inquiries only in narrow subject-matter categories — matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption, and complaints lodged after abnormal delay — and capped them, in routine cases, at seven days, extendable to fifteen on recorded reasons. The BNSS replaces the subject-matter test with an offence-severity test. If the offence carries three years and above but less than seven years' imprisonment, the inquiry route is now statutorily available; if it carries seven years and above, it is statutorily barred. The 14-day cap is fixed. The internal authorisation requirement — written permission from a DySP-rank officer — is new. The Supreme Court's Lalita Kumari doctrine continues to apply where the BNSS is silent, including the procedural guarantees of intimating the complainant, recording reasons, and forwarding the inquiry record to the Magistrate.

Step-by-step procedure

The provision works inside the police station. You will not see most of it. But you can do six things to make sure the inquiry does not become a stalling tactic.

Step 1 — Confirm the offence-tier first. Before you accept that a preliminary inquiry is lawful, identify the section of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) — or whichever statute creates the offence — under which your complaint is being read, and check the punishment. If the maximum sentence is seven years or more, no preliminary inquiry is permitted; an FIR must be registered. If the maximum is three to seven years, the inquiry route is available, and the SHO must take written permission. If the maximum is less than three years, the police follow the existing routes for non-cognizable offences (which are handled differently) or for low-grade cognizable offences (which may also be inquired into under the general Lalita Kumari framework). The offence-tier is the first question.

Step 2 — Ask to see the senior-officer permission. Section 173(3) makes the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of DySP a precondition for the preliminary inquiry. You are entitled to ask whether such permission has been obtained, and on what date. If the inquiry has begun without the written permission, that inquiry is procedurally bad and an FIR must be registered. The internal record — the daily diary entry recording the date of permission and the rank of the granting officer — is something the SHO must produce on request or on a Right to Information application later.

Step 3 — Get the complaint entered in the station diary the same day. Even where a preliminary inquiry is permitted, the complaint itself must be recorded in the general diary on the day it is received. Ask for the diary number, the date, and the name of the officer recording. This is what you will refer to in every subsequent communication — to the SP, to the Magistrate, in an RTI application.

Step 4 — Track the 14-day clock. Section 173(3) caps the preliminary inquiry at fourteen days from the date the complaint was first received. Compute the deadline and note it. On the fifteenth day, the inquiry has run its statutory course. Either an FIR must be registered, or the inquiry must close with a written order finding no prima facie case. There is no third option.

Step 5 — At the end of fourteen days, ask in writing for the outcome. Send a written application to the SHO seeking — (a) the outcome of the preliminary inquiry; (b) a copy of the inquiry report; (c) confirmation of whether an FIR has been registered; and, if not, (d) the written reasons. Submit it in person and take a receipt, or send by Speed Post. The reason for this paper trail is the next step.

Step 6 — Escalate without further delay if you have no answer. If after fourteen days the SHO has neither registered an FIR nor given you a written closure of the inquiry, treat the position as a refusal. Send a complaint to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS [Section 154(3) CrPC]. From there, the full escalation ladder is open — the SP, then the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS, then the High Court. The preliminary inquiry buys the police fourteen days; it does not buy them sixty.

What to watch for

The new provision is short on paper and complicated on the ground. Six common problems arise.

The offence-tier is read down to avoid the duty to register. Sometimes the SHO will tell you that the offence falls in the three-to-seven-year band when it actually falls higher. A complaint of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, of kidnapping, of robbery, or of dowry death is punishable with seven years or more under the BNS — these are immediate-FIR offences. If the SHO is reading the offence down to put it in the inquiry band, the offence-tier itself must be challenged in your complaint to the SP.

Inquiry without DySP permission. The DySP-rank authorisation is a hard precondition under Section 173(3). An inquiry started by the SHO on his own authority is not a Section 173(3) inquiry; it is no inquiry at all. The SHO cannot retroactively obtain permission after the inquiry has begun. The internal file should show the permission dated before, or on, the first day of the inquiry. If you discover later that the file shows otherwise, it is grounds to seek registration.

The 14-day clock being restarted. Sometimes a second complaint is taken on a slightly different formulation of the facts, and the 14 days are restarted from the date of the second complaint. This is contrary to the scheme of Section 173(3). The clock runs from the date the police first received the substance of the information. Restart for a fresh and unconnected incident is fine; restart for the same incident under a new name is not.

The inquiry closing with "no prima facie case" but without a written, reasoned order. The procedural fairness component of Lalita Kumari survives. The inquiry must close with a written order, the order must give reasons, and a copy must be supplied to the informant. A telephone call from the SHO saying "the matter is closed" is not a closure; it is an evasion. Insist on the written order.

The inquiry being used to forewarn the accused and let evidence disappear. A preliminary inquiry, by design, intimates the suspect. The Supreme Court in Sirajuddin v. State of Madras AIR 1971 SC 520 recognised this in the context of corruption cases, where notice to the suspect is sometimes appropriate. In other cases — assault, harassment, financial fraud — the same forewarning destroys evidence. If the inquiry is being conducted for an offence where evidence preservation is fragile, ask the SP to direct registration. Mention the risk of evidence loss in writing.

Inquiry where the offence relates to women, children, or the SC/ST category. Several statutes — including the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and certain sexual-offence provisions of the BNS — require immediate registration of the FIR. Section 173(3) of the BNSS does not override these statutes. Where the offence falls in one of these special categories, the preliminary inquiry route is not available, regardless of the punishment tier. The SHO who routes such a complaint to a preliminary inquiry is, in addition, exposed to liability under Section 198 of the BNS [Section 166A IPC].

If things go wrong

Three remedies sit above the police station once the inquiry route has been misused.

Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS [Section 154(3) CrPC]. Send a written complaint to the SP setting out the date of the original complaint, the date the inquiry began, whether DySP permission was on record, the 14-day deadline, and the present position. Annex copies of every previous paper. The SP is bound to record his satisfaction in writing and either register the FIR himself, direct registration, or close the matter with reasons.

Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS [Section 156(3) CrPC]. Where the SP also fails to act, the application moves to the Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction. Under the BNSS, the Magistrate's Section 175(3) power is unlocked only after the SP rung has been tried — this is a new precondition not found in the old Section 156(3) CrPC. The Magistrate can also take cognizance directly on a private complaint under Sections 210 and 223 BNSS [Sections 190 and 200 CrPC], but the Section 175(3) order to the police is the more common practical route.

High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. A writ of mandamus directing the police to register an FIR is available when the SP and the Magistrate have both failed. The High Court has plenary power to direct registration in a clear case of police inaction. This is rarely needed — most cases end at the SP or the Magistrate — but the constitutional remedy is open.

Where the inquiry has caused real prejudice — destroyed evidence, allowed the accused to abscond, intimidated witnesses — the High Court can be moved not only for FIR registration but for a court-monitored investigation, transfer of investigation to the CBI, or appointment of a specific officer. The wider the prejudice, the wider the remedy a writ court is willing to consider.

Resources

Helplines and portals.

• Emergency: 112
• Women in distress: 1091
• Child helpline: 1098
• Cyber crime: 1930 (call) or cybercrime.gov.in (online)
• National Human Rights Commission: nhrc.nic.in

Statutory references. BNSS Section 173(1) (registration of FIR), Section 173(2) (free copy to informant), Section 173(3) (preliminary inquiry — new provision), Section 173(4) (escalation to SP), Section 175(3) (direction by Magistrate), Section 210 (cognizance by Magistrate), Section 223 (examination of complainant). CrPC equivalents: 154(1), 154(2), absent, 154(3), 156(3), 190, 200. BNS Section 198 [IPC Section 166A] — refusal by public servant to register specified offences.

State police portals. Each state's Police Commissionerate publishes circulars on the implementation of BNSS Section 173(3). Delhi: delhipolice.gov.in. Maharashtra: mahapolice.gov.in. Uttar Pradesh: uppolice.gov.in. Tamil Nadu: tnpolice.gov.in. The standing orders of the State DGP describe how DySP permission is to be recorded — useful background if you suspect the procedural prerequisites have been skipped.

Sample templates. Two PDFs at the foot of this guide — a written complaint to the SHO that doubles as a draft FIR, and an application to the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS once the SP rung has been exhausted. Both formats are placeholders for your specific facts; either reader-level lawyer or a paralegal can adapt them within the day.

Last reviewed: 12 May 2026. The BNSS came into force on 1 July 2024; State-level circulars on Section 173(3) implementation continue to evolve, particularly on the format of DySP permission and the inquiry report. The provisions of Section 173(3) itself are stable as of this date.

Outcome

Section 173(3) of the BNSS legalises the preliminary inquiry for cognizable offences punishable with three to seven years' imprisonment, capped at fourteen days and conditional on prior written permission from a DySP-rank officer. Above the seven-year mark, no inquiry is permitted; the FIR is mandatory and immediate. The Lalita Kumari rule has been codified and tightened — the subject-matter test is gone, replaced by an offence-severity test. If the inquiry runs beyond fourteen days without an FIR or a reasoned closure, the SP, the Magistrate and the High Court remain available, in that order.