Quick answer
Section 173(3) B.N.S.S. allows a limited exception to the rule that an FIR must be registered once a cognizable offence is disclosed. For a cognizable offence punishable with three years or more but less than seven years, the officer in charge of a police station may, with the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, either hold a preliminary enquiry within 14 days to see whether a prima facie case (a case that appears sound at first sight) exists, or proceed with investigation when a prima facie case exists.
The law: Section 173(3) B.N.S.S.
- Offences covered: only cognizable offences punishable for three years or more but less than seven years.
- Conditions: prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, given considering the nature and gravity of the offence.
- Two options: a preliminary enquiry, completed within 14 days, to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists; or direct investigation when a prima facie case exists.
- Section 175 unaffected: the sub-section operates "without prejudice to" the police power to investigate cognizable cases under Section 175.
Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 410, Supreme Court of India, 28 March 2025 (Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.). The Court held that Section 173(3) makes a "significant departure" from Section 154 CrPC. It is an exception to Section 173(1): in the cases it covers, the police may hold a preliminary enquiry to see whether a prima facie case exists even if the information discloses a cognizable offence. If a prima facie case is found, the officer should immediately register an FIR; if not, the officer should immediately inform the informant, who can use Section 173(4). Outside Section 173(3), registration is mandatory once a cognizable offence is disclosed.
Lalita Kumari and Section 173(3) compared
| Point | Lalita Kumari (old law, Section 154 CrPC) | Section 173(3) B.N.S.S. |
|---|---|---|
| When enquiry allowed | Only where the information does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates a need for enquiry | Even where a cognizable offence is disclosed, for offences punishable from 3 years up to less than 7 years |
| Purpose | Only to find out whether a cognizable offence is disclosed, not to test the truth of the information | To find out whether a prima facie case exists for proceeding |
| Time limit | Generally 15 days, up to six weeks in exceptional cases (as modified in 2014) | 14 days |
| Approval | Not required | Prior permission of an officer not below Deputy Superintendent of Police |
Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., AIR 2014 SC 187, Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench of five judges), 12 November 2013. Registration of an FIR under Section 154 CrPC is mandatory if the information discloses a cognizable offence. A limited preliminary inquiry was allowed in illustrative categories such as matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption and abnormally delayed complaints. A 5 March 2014 order changed its time limit from 7 days to 15 days generally, and six weeks in exceptional cases with adequate reasons.
Example
Farhan complains that his business partner Aadil kept goods entrusted to him and refused to return them. Criminal breach of trust under Section 316(2) B.N.S. is cognizable and punishable with up to five years, so it falls within Section 173(3). With the prior permission of a Deputy Superintendent of Police, the officer may hold a preliminary enquiry, which must end within 14 days. If Farhan's complaint were instead of cheating under Section 318(4) B.N.S., punishable with up to seven years, Section 173(3) would not apply, and the FIR would have to be registered.
For the FIR, investigation and bail provisions in one place, see B.N.S.S.: Complete Notes.
Exam point
Section 173(3) B.N.S.S.: 3 years or more but less than 7 years, prior permission of an officer not below Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), preliminary enquiry within 14 days for a prima facie case. Imran Pratapgadhi (2025) calls it a significant departure from Lalita Kumari.
Sources and further reading
- B.N.S.S., 2023 (full text with First Schedule), Indian Kanoon
- Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (Supreme Court, 28 March 2025), Indian Kanoon
- Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (Supreme Court, 12 November 2013), Indian Kanoon
- Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (Supreme Court, 5 March 2014), order modifying the time limit, Indian Kanoon
