The Allahabad High Court has clarified that judicial discretion, not automatic compulsion, governs the power of Special Courts under the SC/ST Act to direct FIR registration under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This ruling reinforces the principle that courts must apply their judicial mind before ordering police investigation, even in cases involving atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, a member of a Scheduled Caste, filed an application under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking direction for registration of an FIR against five respondents for alleged atrocities. The Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Azamgarh, dismissed the application without registering an FIR, having conducted its own inquiry into the veracity of the allegations. The appellant contended that this amounted to an unlawful overreach by the Special Court.
Procedural History
- 2025: Application filed under Section 173(4) BNSS before Special Judge, Azamgarh
- 19 January 2026: Special Judge dismissed the application after conducting an inquiry into the facts
- 2026: Criminal Appeal No. 2318 of 2026 filed before Allahabad High Court challenging the dismissal
Relief Sought
The appellant sought setting aside of the impugned order and a direction to register an FIR under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, arguing that the Special Court had no authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 173(4) BNSS obligates a Special Court to mandatorily direct FIR registration when the applicant belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, and whether Section 4 of the SC/ST Act and Rule 5 of the SC/ST Rules strip the Court of its discretionary power to examine the allegations before ordering investigation.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The appellant’s counsel argued that Section 4 of the SC/ST Act and Rule 5 of the SC/ST Rules impose a non-discretionary duty on authorities to register FIRs without delay in cases involving atrocities against SC/ST persons. Relying on Asha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, counsel contended that any inquiry by the Special Court into the merits of the complaint before directing FIR registration violates the statutory mandate and undermines the protective intent of the Act.
For the Respondent/State
The State countered that Section 173(4) BNSS confers discretionary power on the Magistrate, similar to the erstwhile Section 156(3) CrPC, and that the provisions of the SC/ST Act regulate police conduct, not judicial discretion. The State emphasized that courts must apply judicial scrutiny to prevent misuse of the Act and that mandatory FIR registration without preliminary evaluation could lead to frivolous prosecutions.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of Section 173(4) BNSS, Section 4 of the SC/ST Act, Rule 5 of the SC/ST Rules, and Section 18-A of the Act. It held that while Section 4 and Rule 5 impose strict obligations on police officers and public servants to register FIRs promptly, they do not bind the judiciary in its adjudicatory role under Section 173(4) BNSS.
"Section 4, Section 18-A and Rule 5 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are mainly intended to regulate the duties of police officers and other public servants... and do not curtail the judicial discretion of the Court while considering an application under Section 173(4) BNSS."
The Court distinguished between administrative duties imposed on police and judicial functions vested in courts. It reaffirmed the holdings in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, emphasizing that even in SC/ST cases, courts must assess whether the allegations disclose a prima facie offence connected to caste-based discrimination. The Court noted that treating every application as a mandate for FIR registration would erode judicial oversight and invite abuse.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The Court held that Section 173(4) BNSS grants discretionary power to Special Courts to examine allegations before directing FIR registration, and that Section 4 of the SC/ST Act and Rule 5 do not override this judicial discretion. The Court may proceed with the matter as a complaint case if the allegations do not warrant immediate police investigation.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Judicial Scrutiny Is Mandatory Before FIR Direction
- Practitioners must now argue that Section 173(4) BNSS requires courts to evaluate the sufficiency of allegations, not merely accept them at face value
- Applications under Section 173(4) must contain specific, credible facts linking the alleged offence to caste-based discrimination
- Blanket demands for FIR registration without evidentiary support will not be sustained
SC/ST Act Does Not Create Absolute Right to FIR
- The protective intent of the SC/ST Act does not translate into an automatic right to FIR registration by judicial order
- Police non-compliance with Section 4 or Rule 5 remains punishable, but judicial discretion remains intact
- Courts may record complainant’s statement and proceed under Section 200 CrPC if FIR registration is not warranted
Precedent from CrPC Still Governs
- The discretionary standard from Priyanka Srivastava and Hitesh Verma continues to apply under BNSS
- Courts must still determine whether the complaint discloses a cognizable offence under the SC/ST Act
- Legal teams should prepare affidavits and documentary evidence to substantiate allegations before filing Section 173(4) applications
