Special Courts Not Obliged to Mechanically Order FIR Registration Under Section 173(4) BNSS in SC/ST Cases, Rules Allahabad HC

Allahabad- In a significant ruling, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has held that Special Courts or Magistrates are not automatically required to direct the registration of an FIR when an application is filed under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, solely because the applicant belongs to a Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) community. The court emphasized that the power under this section remains discretionary in nature, requiring judicial application of mind to the facts and allegations.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Anil Kumar-X on March 9, in Criminal Appeal No. 2318 of 2026 Kusum Kannojiya vs. State of U.P. and Others. The appeal challenged the order dated January 19, passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Azamgarh, which had dismissed the appellant's application under Section 173(4) BNSS in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2289 of 2025 (Kusum Kannojiya vs. Pawan Chaubey and 4 others), related to P.S. Bardah, District Azamgarh.

What is the case about?

The appellant, Kusum Kannojiya, filed an application before the Special Judge under Section 173(4) BNSS (equivalent to the erstwhile Section 156(3) CrPC), seeking a direction to the police to register an FIR and investigate alleged offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The trial court dismissed the application after conducting an inquiry into the allegations. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court, arguing that the Special Court lacked authority to conduct such an inquiry and was bound to order FIR registration. Reliance was placed on a coordinate bench decision in Asha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC-LKO:785), where it was held that courts cannot conduct inquiries themselves in such matters and must direct FIR registration.

The State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate (AGA), countered that no such absolute restriction exists under the SC/ST Act, and courts retain discretion.

Key Legal Questions Framed by the HC

The court framed two core issues for determination:

1. Whether a Special Court/Magistrate is bound to direct registration of an FIR on an application under Section 173(4) BNSS by a victim from the SC/ST community?

2. Whether Section 4 of the SC/ST Act and Rule 5 of the SC/ST Rules apply to curtail the court's powers while dealing with such applications?

Court's Observations and Reasoning

Examining the provisions, the court noted that Section 4 of the SC/ST Act punishes public servants (including police officers) for neglecting duties like not registering FIRs or failing to investigate offences against SC/ST persons. Rule 5 mandates prompt FIR registration by police upon receiving information of such offences. Section 18-A prohibits preliminary inquiries or prior approvals before FIR registration in SC/ST cases.

However, the bench clarified:

The court stressed that the power under Section 173(4) BNSS is discretionary, not mandatory. Courts must apply judicial mind and examine allegations before directing police investigation. If immediate investigation is unnecessary, the application can be treated as a complaint and proceeded under the complaint procedure.

Citing precedents:

In Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh ((2015) 6 SCC 287), the Supreme Court held that Magistrates must not mechanically direct FIR registration.

In Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand ((2020) 10 SCC 710), it was observed that even in SC/ST cases, courts must prima facie assess if allegations are connected to the victim's caste.

The bench distinguished the relied-upon Asha case, noting that its observations primarily targeted police and public servants' duties, not judicial powers.

Concluding that the Special Judge's inquiry and dismissal were within judicial discretion, the High Court dismissed the appeal.