1. Complaint under Section 223 BNSS for registration of FIR for IPC offences dismissed for non-compliance with pre-conditions. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(HP) 760
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Ashish Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & another - Respondents
Cr. MMO No. 1017 of 2025
Decided On : 08-07-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: In person.
For the Respondent:Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General
For the Petitioner: In person.
For the Respondent:Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General
The mandatory requirements to approach the police and support applications for FIR registration with an affidavit, previously established by judicial precedents, are now codified under Sections 173(4) and 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 173(4), 175(3) and 223 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 406, 409, 415, 419, 420, 463, 468-471 - Registration of F.I.R. - Mandatory requirement to approach the Station House Officer and Superintendent of Police before praying for registration of F.I.R. through the Court - Requirement to furnish a copy of the application made to the Superintendent of Police, supported by an affidavit, while making the application to the Magistrate - Procedural safeguards aimed at curbing the misuse of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and preventing harassment of the accused. (Paras 10, 11)
(B) Judicial Mind - Power of the Magistrate to conduct an enquiry and consider submissions of the officer in charge of the police station before issuing directions for registration of F.I.R. - Codification of judicial evolution regarding the necessidade of prior police approach and affidavit support ensures greater accountability and reasoned orders. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
A complaint was filed under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking the registration of an F.I.R. for various offences under the Indian Penal Code, alleging that the accused personated as a public servant and acted as a disciplinary authority. The Trial Court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the complainant failed to aver that he had approached the Station House Officer first. The Revisional Court upheld this decision, adding that the complainant had submitted incomplete documents. The petitioner then challenged these orders before the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the complainant did not mention in the complaint that he had approached the police for the registration of an F.I.R. or that the police had refused to do so. The Court also noted that the petitioner failed to provide any legal provision or regulation supporting the claim that only a public servant is authorized to conduct an inquiry.
Issues: Whether the procedural requirements of approaching the police and filing an affidavit, as established by judicial precedents and codified under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, must be followed before a Magistrate can direct the registration of an F.I.R.
Ratio Decidendi: The requirements to approach the police hierarchy (Station House Officer and Superintendent of Police) and to support the application with an affidavit prior to seeking an order for F.I.R. registration have been codified under Section 175(3) and Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. These provisions codify prior judicial mandates to prevent the casual invocation of the Magistrate's authority for ulterior motives. Consequently, a complaint seeking the registration of an F.I.R. without such prior compliance is not maintainable.
Result: Petition dismissed with the cost of Rs.10,000/-.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- crime and sentencing
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued complaint disclosed cognizable offences; State made no submissions. (Para 7 , 8 )
3. Complainant did not allege approaching police; Priyanka Srivastava requirements codified in BNSS apply. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. Before filing complaint under Section 223 BNSS for FIR registration, complainant must exhaust remedies under Section 173 BNSS. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
5. Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000; lower court orders upheld. (Para 16 , 17 )
6. What are the pre-conditions for filing an application under Section 175(3) BNSS for registration of FIR?
Applicant must first approach the officer in charge under Section 173(1) BNSS and, upon refusal, the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS before applying to the Magistrate. (Para 10 , 11 )
7. Does the requirement of Priyanka Srivastava apply to complaints under BNSS?
Yes, the requirements have been codified under Section 175(3) BNSS, making prior application to police mandatory. (Para 11 , 12 )
8. Can a complaint for FIR registration be maintained without the complainant averring that she approached the police?
No, the complaint must contain such an averment and documents showing compliance; otherwise it is not maintainable. (Para 12 , 13 )
9. What is the effect of filing only a front page of a document without the deponent's signature or name?
It is impermissible to decide a matter on an incomplete document; criminal machinery cannot be set in motion on such a document. (Para 4 , 14 )
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for setting aside the order dated 30.08.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (CBI Court), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the order dated 17.04.2025, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court) was upheld. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant filed a complaint under Section 223 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, for the registration of the F.I.R for the commission of offences Punishable under Section 406, 409, 415, 419, 420, 463, 468-471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the accused had submitted before the State Human Rights Commission on affidavit that she was not a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the IPC. She personated as a public servant and acted as a disciplinary authority in the matter of the complainant. The memorandum issued by her was void and non-est. Therefore, it was prayed that the F.I.R. be registered against her.
3. Learned Trial Court held that as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Shrivastva & another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others in Criminal Appeal No. 781 of 2012, it is mandatory to approach the Station House Officer (SHO) before praying for the registration of FIR through the Court. In the present case, there was no allegation that the complainant had approached the SHO. Hence, the complaint under Section 223 of BNSS was not maintainable.
4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the complainant filed a revision, which was decided by the learned Additional Session Judge, CBI Court, Shimla, H.P. (Learned Revisional Court). The Learned Revisional Court held that the complainant had not brought the complete document or its certified copy on record. He has only filed the front page of the document, which does not contain the signatures or the name of the deponent. It is impermissible to decide a matter without going through the entire document. The criminal machinery cannot be set in motion on an incomplete document. There was no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the revision was dismissed.
5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Courts below, the petitioner has approached this Court asserting that the learned Courts below purposely neglected their official duty and responsibility towards society. The material on record clearly showed that the accused had violated various provisions of the IPC by filing an affidavit before the State Human Rights Commission that she was not a public servant. She had issued the memorandum to harass the complainant. The learned Courts below failed to adhere to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari vs. State of UP. The Trial Court had not applied the judicial mind and violated the provisions of natural justice by dismissing the complaint. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned courts below be set aside.
6. I have heard the petitioner, who appeared in person, and Mr Ajit Kumar Sharma, learned Advocate General, for the respondent No.1/State.
7. The petitioner submitted that the learned Courts below erred in dismissing the application filed by the complainant. The application disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence, and an FIR should have been registered. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari v. State of UP was not followed, and it was wrongly held that it is necessary to approach the Station House Officer before filing the complaint before the Court. He prayed that the present petition be allowed and the orders passed by the learned courts below be set as
