(A Practical Guide for Banks and financial institutions)

1. Understanding FIR, Section 154 CrPC and Section 173 BNSS

Section 154 CrPC governs how police must record information relating to cognizable offences. Registration of an FIR for cognizable offences is a mandatory duty of the police. When an officer in charge refuses to register an FIR, the law provides a graded and structured remedy system under Section 154 CrPC, the parallel provision Section 173 BNSS, and a consistent line of Supreme Court judgments led by Lalita Kumari.

2. Step 1 – Submit Written Complaint and Insist on FIR Copy

Provide a clear written complaint with facts, dates, and specific offences. Ask for a written endorsement if FIR is refused. If the officer refuses to record the information as FIR but conducts some “informal enquiry” or registers it as a non‑cognizable report, the complainant should expressly request a written endorsement or closure communication because later remedies often require proof that the FIR was declined. For institutions like banks, documenting the attempt to lodge FIR (letter, dispatch proof, diary entry number, email acknowledgement, screenshot of e‑FIR* portal, etc.) becomes important for internal audit, reporting to regulators and supporting later proceedings before the Magistrate or High Court. ​

*An e-FIR (electronic First Information Report) is filed online for cognizable offenses and requires the complainant to physically sign the report at a police station within three days to make it official. The procedure involves online submission of complaint details, police verification and registration of the case, and the complainant’s physical signature for confirmation. Its usefulness lies in convenience, time efficiency, and increased accessibility for citizens, allowing them to bypass geographic and bureaucratic hurdles to report crimes quickly and accurately.

3. Step 2 – Approach SP/Commissioner (Section 154(3) CrPC / Section 173 BNSS)

If the officer in charge of the police station refuses to register the FIR, the next statutory remedy is to send the complaint in writing by post or otherwise to the Superintendent of Police (SP) / Commissioner of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC, and under the corresponding BNSS structure for Section 173. The SP/Commissioner may then either investigate the case personally or direct a subordinate officer to investigate, which in practice means directing registration of an FIR and proper investigation. ​

Recent Supreme Court decisions have reiterated that trial courts should not ordinarily be approached under Section 156(3) CrPC unless these remedies under Section 154(3) have first been exhausted, treating the statutory hierarchy as a mandatory first line of redress. For corporate and banking complainants, routing through the SP, cyber‑crime cell or economic offences wing with a well‑documented dossier often results in faster and more specialised investigation, especially in high‑value frauds and multi‑state scams. ​

4. Step 3 – Seek Magistrate’s Direction (Section 156(3) CrPC / Section 173(4) & 175(3) BNSS)

If approaching senior police officers still does not lead to registration of an FIR, the complainant can file an application before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, and under the new regime, the parallel power is described as Section 173(4) read with Section 175(3) BNSS. The Magistrate is empowered to direct the police to register an FIR and investigate if the application discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, and at this stage is not required to conduct a detailed assessment of the truth or genuineness of the allegations. ​

The Supreme Court has clarified in a recent judgment that while the Magistrate should normally insist that the complainant first exhaust the remedy under Section 154(3), an order under Section 156(3) is not void merely because the complainant came directly to court; such deviation may be treated as procedural irregularity, not complete lack of jurisdiction. However, decisions such as Priyanka Srivastava have also emphasised the need for an affidavit and supporting material to prevent frivolous use of Section 156(3), and later rulings continue to stress that Magistrates must apply their mind and record brief reasons when directing investigation. ​

5. Step 4 – Private complaint, protest petition and further remedies

Instead of or in addition to seeking a direction for investigation, the complainant may choose to file a private complaint before the Magistrate under Sections 190 and 200 CrPC, laying the factual foundation for the court to take cognizance directly and examine the complainant and witnesses on oath. In some High Court practices flowing from Lalita Kumari and related judgments, where the police conduct a preliminary enquiry and issue a closure report, the complainant can challenge that outcome via a petition or by filing a fresh complaint before the Magistrate, annexing the closure and persuading the court to take cognizance. ​

If there is continued inaction or abuse of process, the aggrieved person can invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or file a writ petition, but High Courts routinely insist that statutory remedies under Sections 154 and 156 be exhausted first, and they rarely convert themselves into a first‑instance FIR registration forum. In exceptional scenarios—such as systemic refusal to register FIRs in sensitive cases—constitutional courts have still intervened to direct registration and monitor investigation, but the thrust of recent case law is to channel routine grievances through the statutory hierarchy. ​

6. Supreme Court’s key rulings on refusal to register FIR

• Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (Constitution Bench): This judgment declared that registration of FIR is mandatory where information discloses a cognizable offence and permitted only limited preliminary enquiry in specific categories like matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence and corruption, with a duty to communicate closure to the complainant. ​
• Recent Supreme Court clarification on Section 154 CrPC vs Section 173 BNSS: A 2025 judgment explained that Section 173(1) BNSS is substantially similar to Section 154 CrPC on the duty to record information in cognizable cases, while Section 173(3) introduces a structured preliminary enquiry in certain categories, balancing mandatory registration with safeguards against frivolous cases. ​
• Orders on Section 156(3) CrPC and exhaustion of remedies: In new decisions, the Court has reiterated that Section 156(3) is ordinarily invoked when police have declined to register FIR, and that Magistrates should avoid entertaining such applications unless remedies under Section 154(3) have been availed, though an order is not invalid solely because the complainant skipped that step. ​

For banking and financial disputes, these rulings collectively mean that once a bank, NBFC or customer reports a cognizable economic offence—cyber‑fraud, forged instruments, criminal breach of trust, cheating, or corruption—the police and later the Magistrate cannot avoid acting merely on grounds of “internal dispute”, “civil nature” or “under enquiry” if core ingredients of a cognizable offence are disclosed. ​

7. Section 173 BNSS – what changes in the FIR landscape

While Section 154 CrPC dealt with information in cognizable cases in a relatively straightforward manner, the BNSS framework under Section 173 refines this by: ​

• Retaining the core rule that information disclosing a cognizable offence must be recorded, reduced to writing, read over and signed, and registered in the prescribed manner. ​
• Allowing for a limited preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) in cases where the offence, though cognizable, falls within a defined punishment band (for example, certain offences punishable with three years or more but less than seven years), to filter out frivolous complaints. ​
• Integrating e‑FIR and Zero FIR concepts via police SOPs, which permit registration at any police station irrespective of jurisdiction and subsequent transfer to the competent police station, particularly relevant for online banking fraud or multi‑location offences. ​

A recent analytical discussion and Supreme Court commentary emphasise that despite this new enquiry window, the default position continues to favour prompt FIR registration, and any preliminary enquiry must be time‑bound, reasoned, and followed by communication to the complainant if FIR is declined. For financial institutions, BNSS provisions support digital‑first reporting of frauds and centralised complaint handling, which can be aligned with RBI’s cyber‑fraud reporting timelines and internal escalation frameworks. ​

8. Practical tips for complainants and banks when FIR is refused

• Document everything: Keep copies of written complaints, emails, acknowledgements, e‑FIR attempts, and names of officers spoken to; this material will be needed for SP/Commissioner, Magistrate and any High Court proceedings. ​
• Use statutory language: In representations to SP or Magistrate, specifically mention that the complaint “discloses a cognizable offence” and that police have “refused/failed to register FIR under Section 154 CrPC / Section 173 BNSS”, aligning with how courts frame the issue. ​
• Follow the graded route: First approach the police station, then SP/Commissioner (Section 154(3)), then the Magistrate (Section 156(3) / Section 173(4) read with 175(3)), and only thereafter consider High Court remedies, as strongly underscored in recent Supreme Court decisions. ​
• Support with internal records: Banks and corporates should annex account statements, KYC documents, transaction trails, internal investigation notes and RBI reporting references, which help demonstrate that the complaint is not frivolous and merits criminal investigation. ​

XXX