When a complaint clearly discloses a cognizable offence, the police have a mandatory statutory duty to register an FIR under Section 154 CrPC/Section 173 BNSS, and they cannot decline registration by conducting a preliminary inquiry to assess the veracity or credibility of the allegations.

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief:

“…issue a Writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the action of the respondents that not making FIR against respondents no 6 and 7 is illegal, arbitrary and violative article 14, 21 and 300- A of the Constitution of India and alternatively direct the respondent no.2 to conduct an enquiry against respondents nos. 4 and 5 and take the necessary action. Consequently, direct an FIR against the respondents 6 and 7…”

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

3. Mr. Metta Chandrasekhar Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner has lodged a complaint stating that Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 broke open the lock of the rented house of the Petitioner and, without his permission, took away 3 kgs of religious silver articles, 37 grams of gold jewellery, and essential household items, namely a washing machine, two air-conditioners, a refrigerator, a dining table, a dressing table, two double cot beds, two gas cylinders, and a gas stove. The said information was furnished to Respondent No. 3 by way of lodging a complaint, and a representation petition was also sent in that regard. However, despite this, the Respondent/Police have not taken any steps to register an FIR.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No.5 filed counter. It is submitted that the allegations of theft are baseless as the Petitioner’s son was in continuous contact with him between 25.01.2025 and 30.01.2025, confirmed by CDRs. He voluntarily stayed at MVP Check-in Lodge and Sai Sudha PG Hostel, supported by receipts. On 03.02.2025, his statement before police denied kidnapping, threats, or loss of passport. Independent witnesses confirmed that the Petitioner vacated the rented house and handed over keys to Respondent No.6, stating no valuables remained. Hence, the claims of breaking open the lock and removal of silver, gold, and household items are false and arise only out of financial disputes.

5. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that a preliminary enquiry as contemplated under Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for brevity,‘the BNSS’) was conducted by Respondent No.4, and it was revealed that the allegations levelled by the Petitioner against Respondent Nos.6 and 7 are false.

6. Be that as it may, the officer conducting the preliminary enquiry shall confine himself to examining whether the complaint of the Petitioner discloses commission of a non‑cognizable offence. The scope of such enquiry is limited only to ascertain whether any cognizable offence is made out or not. Respondent No.4, without registering an FIR, cannot delve into all aspects or determine whether the allegations are true or false. It is only after registration of the FIR and recording the statements of prosecution witnesses, the Investigating Officer can reach a conclusion as to whether the allegations of the Petitioner are false or otherwise.

7. Even Section 173(3) of ‘the BNSS’ says as under:

“Without prejudice to the provisions contained in section 175, on receipt of information relating to the commission of any cognizable offence, which is made punishable for three years or more but less than seven years, the officer in charge of the police station may with the prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, considering the nature and gravity of the offence,-(i) proceed to conduct preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether there