If the police refuse to register an FIR for a cognizable offence, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) gives you a sequence: write to the Superintendent of Police (Section 173(4)), then go to the Magistrate (Section 175(3)) or file a complaint (Section 223). In April and May 2026 the Supreme Court held that this is a complete remedy and that a High Court writ filed first is premature, except in urgent cases.
Why this matters
When a police station will not take your complaint, filing a writ petition in the High Court can feel like the strongest move. In 2026 the Supreme Court told the courts and litigants that it is often the wrong first move. In one case it even quashed an FIR that had been registered because a High Court ordered it. Skipping the statutory steps can cost you time, money and the FIR itself.
This guide sets out the ladder, what the 2026 rulings say, and the narrow cases where going to a High Court earlier can still work.
First, check: is it a cognizable offence?
Everything below applies to cognizable offences, those for which police can arrest without a warrant (Section 2(1)(g) BNSS). If the facts disclose only a non-cognizable offence, the police cannot register an FIR or investigate on their own. They record an NCR and send you to the Magistrate (Section 174 BNSS). The Delhi High Court applied exactly that in Kunal Yadav v. Manan Kumar Mishra (W.P.(CRL) 2850/2026, 21 September 2026). The petitioners said they had been beaten and slapped; the Court noted the allegation was only of beating, slapping and dragging, with no weapon, which at most is hurt, a non-cognizable offence. It dismissed their writ for an FIR as not maintainable, because only the Magistrate could act under Section 174 BNSS, and their remedy was a complaint under Section 223 BNSS. It also noted that they had not even complained to the DCP, the Delhi equivalent of the Superintendent of Police.
If you are unsure which category your matter falls in, read our guide NCR, FIR, Zero FIR or GD Entry: What Did Police Record?.
The ladder, step by step
Step 1: Give the information to the police station
Information about a cognizable offence may be given orally or by electronic communication to an officer in charge of a police station, and the BNSS requires it to be recorded, read over and signed (Section 173(1) BNSS). The Supreme Court's Constitution Bench held in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (12 November 2013) that registration of the FIR is mandatory if the information discloses a cognizable offence, with no preliminary inquiry, and that action must be taken against officers who do not register it.
The BNSS allows a short preliminary enquiry for offences punishable with three years or more but less than seven: with prior permission of an officer not below Deputy Superintendent of Police, the officer in charge may enquire for up to fourteen days whether a prima facie case exists (Section 173(3) BNSS). The Supreme Court has said that, if after such an enquiry the officer concludes that no prima facie case exists, they should immediately inform the complainant so that the complainant can use the remedy under Section 173(4) (Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, as quoted in the Supreme Court's September 2025 judgment in Mohammad Afzal).
Step 2: Write to the Superintendent of Police
If the officer refuses to record the information, you may send the substance of the information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned. If the Superintendent is satisfied that it discloses a cognizable offence, they must either investigate the case themselves or direct a subordinate officer to do so, and that officer has all the powers of an officer in charge of a police station for that offence (Section 173(4) BNSS).
In practice:
- Send the letter by registered post and keep the receipt. The Supreme Court in Mohammad Afzal noted that the complainant had written to the Superintendent of Police and there was no explanation of what, if anything, the Superintendent did.
- State the facts, dates, names and the offence clearly. Attach any medical record, messages or documents.
- Keep a copy of exactly what you sent. You will need it again for the next step.
Step 3: Go to the Magistrate
If the Superintendent does not act, section 173(4) itself says you may apply to the Magistrate. Under Section 175(3) BNSS, a Magistrate empowered under Section 210 may order an investigation after:
- considering your application, supported by an affidavit, made under Section 173(4);
- making such inquiry as the Magistrate thinks necessary; and
- considering the submission of the police officer.
In Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra (16 January 2025, 2025 INSC 139), the Supreme Court explained these as three changes from the old Section 156(3) CrPC: applying to the Superintendent of Police is now mandatory, the Magistrate may inquire, and the police must be heard. It also repeated that the Magistrate must apply judicial mind and is "not supposed to act merely as a Post Office," and it set aside orders directing investigation that had been passed mechanically where the complaint disclosed no ingredients of the offences alleged. Earlier, in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (19 March 2015), the Court had required prior applications to the police and an affidavit.
Alternative: you can instead file a complaint before the Magistrate under Section 223 BNSS, which is a route in its own right. The Magistrate examines you on oath and, under the BNSS, must give the accused an opportunity of being heard before taking cognizance (Section 223(1) BNSS).
Step 4: Only then the High Court
The High Court's writ power under Article 226 of the Constitution remains as a safeguard. The Supreme Court's 2026 rulings explain when it is appropriate.
What the Supreme Court said in 2026
*Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India* (29 April 2026)
A bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta JJ. decided a batch of petitions, mainly about hate speech, and in doing so ruled on remedies for non-registration of FIRs. The Court held that the BNSS "provides a comprehensive and multi-tiered mechanism" and that the remedies under Sections 154(3), 156(3) and 200 of the CrPC (now BNSS Sections 173(4), 175 and 223) with the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate "constitute an efficacious statutory scheme." It said constitutional remedies under Articles 32 and 226 "remain available as a safeguard against failure of statutory authorities," but that this jurisdiction is extraordinary and "ought not to be invoked in a routine manner so as to bypass the remedies provided under the statutory framework."
Its summarised conclusions add three points worth knowing:
- The police duty to register an FIR on disclosure of a cognizable offence is mandatory, as settled in Lalita Kumari.
- The Magistrate's supervisory power under Section 175 BNSS is of wide amplitude, and can be used while the investigation is on, to deal with "deficiency, inaction, or taint" in it.
- Prior sanction to prosecute a public servant (Sections 217 and 218 BNSS) operates at the stage of taking cognizance, and does not apply at the pre-cognizance stage of registering an FIR or ordering investigation under Section 175(3). An order for investigation is not "taking cognizance."
*Sujal Vishwas Attavar v. State of Maharashtra* (4 May 2026, 2026 INSC 442)
A bench of Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih JJ. dealt with a company that complained of forgery and impersonation in a land measurement, was told by the land records office to seek redress elsewhere, saw the police send the matter back to that office for inquiry, and went straight to the Bombay High Court. The High Court directed the police to record the director's statement, and an FIR followed. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's interim order and quashed the FIR, holding:
"If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being conducted, then the remedy does not ordinarily lie in invoking the writ jurisdiction in the first instance, but in seeking recourse to the statutory framework, unless of course the urgency of the circumstances warrant otherwise."
It described the sequence in terms: the FIR under Section 173(1) BNSS; on refusal, the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4); then the Magistrate under Section 175(3). Because the company had not tried the Superintendent or the Magistrate, the writ was "premature," and entertaining it would make the High Court "a forum of first instance" that bypasses the scheme. The Court said Article 226 "is not a panacea for all grievances," particularly "in the absence of imminent danger of violation of life or liberty of an individual." It left the parties free to use the alternative remedies and expressed no view on the merits.
The Court restated the usual exceptions to the alternative-remedy rule: enforcement of a fundamental right, violation of natural justice, an order or proceeding wholly without jurisdiction, or a challenge to the validity of a law.
When going to the High Court can still work
The 2026 rulings leave room for real urgency, and the Supreme Court has granted relief in a writ-related case where the police failure was stark. In Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif v. State of Maharashtra (11 September 2025, 2025 INSC 1100), a 17-year-old said he was assaulted with weapons during riots and also witnessed a killing. The police station had been told of his admission to hospital through a medico-legal case entry, and he and his father wrote to the Superintendent of Police on 1 June 2023. No FIR was registered for the assault on him. The Bombay High Court dismissed his writ, doubting his motives. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, held that once the police knew of a cognizable offence from the medico-legal case, "a duty was cast upon the police to register" it, noted that the Superintendent of Police had given no explanation for inaction on the written complaint, and directed the State's Home Secretary to constitute a special investigation team, register an FIR for the assault, and begin disciplinary action against the officials at fault.
The common thread is that the complainant in Mohammad Afzal had already written to the Superintendent of Police, and the police inaction was clear on the record. If you are in that position, or facing a danger that cannot wait for the ladder, a lawyer may advise that a writ is justified. Do not treat it as the default.
A rejected Magistrate application is not the end
In Pramod Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 3931 of 2026, 19 August 2026, 2026 INSC 887), a Magistrate had earlier rejected an application for a direction to register an FIR after a police report described the dispute as a land transaction. The complainant later gave information to the police, and an FIR was registered. The accused argued that the earlier rejection barred it. The Supreme Court disagreed: the rejection of the application "neither determines the merits of the controversy nor reflects upon the truthfulness of the allegations subsequently made in the FIR," and the police's duty to register and investigate a cognizable offence "flows directly" from the Code itself, as Lalita Kumari held. The Court dismissed the appeal against the High Court's refusal to quash the FIR, noting the FIR alleged inducing payment for public employment and forged documents, which, taken at face value, disclosed cognizable offences.
This does not mean you can keep re-filing the same application. The Court distinguished a recent decision (Mohan Karthik) that dealt with a Magistrate's repeated use of the power to direct investigation; Pramod Kumar Shukla was about the police's separate statutory duty, and the State there also pointed to fresh material produced after the earlier rejection.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Skipping the Superintendent of Police. Section 175(3) BNSS directs the Magistrate to consider your application to the Superintendent, supported by an affidavit. Arriving without it invites refusal.
- A vague complaint. In Om Prakash Ambadkar the Supreme Court set aside a direction to investigate where the complaint did not even say what abusive words were used, and the ingredients of the offences alleged were missing.
- Dressing a civil dispute as a crime. In Sujal Vishwas Attavar the Court noted pending civil suits between the parties. Courts look closely at whether the allegations disclose a cognizable offence at all.
- Waiting. In Lalita Kumari the Court listed unexplained delay of over three months in reporting as one situation where a preliminary inquiry may be made before registration, and for minor offences the limitation in Section 514 BNSS can run out.
- Going to the High Court first, when there is no urgency. That is what the 2026 rulings discourage.
Documents and resources you need
- Written statement of facts with dates, places and names
- Evidence: medical papers, photographs, messages, bills
- Registered-post receipt for the letter to the Superintendent of Police, and a copy of the letter
- Affidavit to accompany the application to the Magistrate
- Free legal aid: NALSA helpline 15100, or your District Legal Services Authority
Common myths
Myth: If the police refuse, the High Court is the next step. Reality: The next step is the Superintendent of Police, then the Magistrate. The Supreme Court said in 2026 that a writ filed first is ordinarily premature.
Myth: The Magistrate must order an FIR if you ask. Reality: The Magistrate must apply their mind, consider your affidavit-supported application, inquire as needed and hear the police.
Myth: Once a Magistrate rejects your application, no FIR can ever be registered. Reality: The police's own duty to register an FIR for information disclosing a cognizable offence continues (Pramod Kumar Shukla, 2026).
Myth: Police can write NCR for anything they do not want to investigate. Reality: If the facts disclose a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered, and the ladder above applies.
The law behind this
| Step | Old Law (CrPC) | New Law (BNSS) |
|---|---|---|
| FIR for a cognizable offence | Section 154(1) | Section 173(1) |
| Limited preliminary enquiry | Judge-made (Lalita Kumari) | Section 173(3) |
| Complaint to the Superintendent of Police on refusal | Section 154(3) | Section 173(4) |
| Magistrate's direction to investigate | Section 156(3) | Section 175(3) |
| Complaint to the Magistrate | Section 200 | Section 223 |
| Cognizance by the Magistrate | Section 190 | Section 210 |
| Non-cognizable offence: NCR and referral | Section 155 | Section 174 |
Frequently asked questions
What should I do if the police refuse to register my FIR? If your complaint discloses a cognizable offence, send the substance of the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police (Section 173(4) BNSS). If that does not work, apply to the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS, supported by an affidavit, or file a complaint under Section 223 BNSS. The Supreme Court said in April and May 2026 that this is the route to follow before approaching a High Court.
Can I file a writ petition in the High Court to get an FIR registered? Ordinarily not as a first step. In Sujal Vishwas Attavar (4 May 2026) the Supreme Court held that a writ for FIR registration filed without first using the Superintendent of Police and Magistrate remedies was premature, and quashed an FIR registered on a High Court direction. It left room for cases of urgency or imminent danger to life or liberty.
Is there any case where a writ for an FIR worked? Yes. In Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif v. State of Maharashtra (11 September 2025) the Supreme Court set aside a High Court order that had dismissed a writ, held the police were duty-bound to register an FIR once they knew of a medico-legal case involving the injured complainant, and directed a special investigation team. The complainant had already written to the Superintendent of Police.
Does the Magistrate have to order an FIR when I apply under Section 175(3)? No. The Magistrate must apply their mind, consider your application to the Superintendent of Police supported by an affidavit, make such inquiry as needed, and consider the police officer's submission (Section 175(3) BNSS; Om Prakash Ambadkar, 2025). Orders directing an FIR passed mechanically have been set aside.
If the Magistrate rejected my application, can I still get an FIR registered? Rejection of an application for a direction to register an FIR does not extinguish the police's separate duty to register an FIR when information disclosing a cognizable offence is given to them. The Supreme Court said so in Pramod Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. (19 August 2026). A fresh complaint with new material is a different matter from repeating the same application.
What if the offence is non-cognizable? Then the police must record an NCR and refer you to the Magistrate (Section 174 BNSS), and they cannot investigate without the Magistrate's order. The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ for an FIR on that ground on 21 September 2026 in Kunal Yadav v. Manan Kumar Mishra.
This guide is general legal information for readers in India, not legal advice for your situation. If there is an immediate danger to life or liberty, seek legal advice at once about urgent remedies.