Police Refusing to Register Your Complaint? Here’s What the Law Says

Imagine this: you spot someone impersonating an official on WhatsApp and defrauding a 77‑year‑old woman in South Mumbai of ₹3.8 crore by threatening her with fabricated charges of money laundering, only to find that when you go to lodge a complaint, the officer refuses, saying your case is trivial compared to “bigger scams.” This happened recently in Mumbai, where the High Court severely criticised the police for delay and inaction in such a digital fraud case, stating that the first step for a victim should always be the police, not the court. Or consider dating app scams like the one where victims were lured into a restaurant, presented exorbitant fraudulent bills, and threatened into paying, yet many never muster the courage to even approach the police.

The Problem: Refusal to Register Complaints

If you walk into a police station to report fraud, cheating, assault, harassment, or cyber fraud, only to be told it’s “a civil matter,” or demanded “bring proof first,” you’re not alone and this is more than discourteous it’s unlawful. Across the country, recent frauds, from cyber extortion to everyday dating app cons have spotlighted the fact that victims often face reluctance or outright refusal from police to register FIRs, despite ample reason to believe a cognizable offence has occurred.

The impact is significant: critical minutes for preserving digital evidence slip away, investigations stall, and perpetrators roam free. This systemic resistance undermines the complainant’s right to legal protection and timely justice.

Whether the allegation involves threats, assault, fraud, or harassment, complainants are often discouraged from pursuing their grievance, misinformed about the legal classification of the offence, or dismissed without any written acknowledgment. Such conduct reflects a troubling institutional indifference. It not only erodes public confidence in the criminal justice system but also compromises the complainant’s right to a prompt investigation, the preservation of evidence, and meaningful access to legal remedies.

What the Law Says: FIR Is a Statutory Right

Under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), now replaced by Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) is mandatory where the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.

In the landmark judgment of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held:

“Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.”

Police officers are not permitted to assess the credibility of the information before registering an FIR. Their duty is limited to recording the complaint if it discloses a cognizable offence.

Cognizable vs. Non-Cognizable Offences: And the Curious Case of NCs

A cognizable offence is one in which the police are legally empowered to register a FIR and initiate an investigation without prior approval of the Magistrate. These typically involve serious crimes such as murder, rape, criminal breach of trust, or grievous assault, where immediate police intervention is necessary.

In contrast, a non-cognizable offence refers to less serious infractions such as defamation, public nuisance, or simple hurt where the police require prior sanction from the Magistrate before proceeding with investigation or arrest.

The distinction is not merely procedural; it is foundational to how access to justice begins. Refusal to register an FIR in a cognizable matter is not just improper, it constitutes a breach of statutory duty, attracting both judicial scrutiny and potential disciplinary consequences.

Yet, in practice, many complainants are handed a slip labelled “NC” or “non-cognizable complaint,” without any explanation or verification. This informal and often opaque classification is frequently used to delay or deny rightful registration of an FIR, particularly in cases involving threats, stalking, or economic offences.

Judicial Precedents: The Law Is Clear - FIR Registration Is a Duty, Not Discretion

Over the past two decades, the judiciary has repeatedly clarified that the registration of an FIR is a mandatory legal obligation when a cognizable offence is disclosed. Starting with T. T. Antony's Case and culminating in more recent pronouncements post–BNSS, courts have drawn a consistent line against police inaction, delay, or evasion.

Over the past two decades, Indian courts have consistently reinforced the principle that the police are under a mandatory legal duty to register an FIR when a cognizable offence is disclosed. In T. T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, the Supreme Court held that only one FIR can be registered in respect of a single transaction, thereby affirming the primacy and evidentiary sanctity of the initial complaint. This principle was significantly expanded in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, where a Constitution Bench unequivocally held that registration of an FIR under Section 154 CrPC is mandatory when information reveals a cognizable offence, and that preliminary inquiry is permissible only in narrowly defined categories. In Nishu v. Commissioner of Police, (2014) 12 SCC 546, the Court expressed concern over delayed registration despite eventual compliance, reaffirming that delay itself can amount to a breach of duty.

More recently, the decision in Lalit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 171, clarified that refusal to register an FIR on the ground that a matter appears civil in nature is impermissible where the allegations disclose elements of criminality. In XYZ v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 9 SCC 705, the Court confirmed that the veracity of allegations is not to be tested at the FIR stage, especially in complaints involving sexual harassment. Most recently, in 2025, both the Kerala High Court in XXX v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 4030, and the Supreme Court in Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 678, reiterated that FIR registration must be guided by legal thresholds, not subjective assessments or extraneous considerations.

From Zero FIR to Departmental Action: Enforcing the Duty to Register

At the central level, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has issued multiple advisories directing that FIRs must be registered under Section 154 CrPC upon disclosure of a cognizable offence, irrespective of jurisdiction or the identity of the informant. These circulars formally introduced the concept of the Zero FIR, enabling registration at any police station and subsequent transfer to the appropriate jurisdiction. The advisories also warned that non-compliance may invite disciplinary proceedings or even criminal liability under Section 166A of the IPC, which penalises public servants for knowingly disobeying the law.

At the state level, Maharashtra Police has issued its own set of internal circulars and standing orders reiterating the mandatory nature of FIR registration. These directives have been implemented across police stations in Mumbai and other major districts, with specific reference to Lalita Kumari.

In 2023, the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission passed a scathing order in Shahnaz Bano Ehsann Ali Shah v. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone VI, Mumbai, Case No. 1155/13/16/2022/255, where the complainant alleged that the police had refused to register her complaint of repeated sexual assault under Section 376 IPC, despite several representations. The FIR was eventually registered only after she approached higher authorities, and even then, the police failed to arrest the accused despite rejection of anticipatory bail by both the Sessions Court and the High Court. The Commission found that the police had acted in breach of duty, delayed registration, and demonstrated bias, and accordingly recommended that the Home Department initiate disciplinary action against the erring officers. It further directed the State Government to pay ₹2,00,000 as compensation to the complainant within two months. In another notable instance from 2024, the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission imposed a penalty on a police officer who failed to register an FIR under Sections 354 and 323 IPC, recording the complaint as a non-cognizable (NC) entry instead. The Commission held that this constituted dereliction of duty, particularly in a matter involving alleged sexual assault.

With the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), these obligations have now been codified into statutory procedure. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) accompanying the BNSS mandate that any preliminary inquiry must be completed within 14 days, require supervisory approval, and must be documented in writing. Where a cognizable offence is disclosed, delay or refusal in FIR registration without lawful justification may now trigger departmental consequences and judicial scrutiny. These institutional reforms aim to bring structural accountability to what has long been treated as a discretionary policing function.

Zero FIR and Online Reporting

The concept of Zero FIR, first outlined in Ministry of Home Affairs advisories and later affirmed by the courts, allows a complainant to file an FIR at any police station, regardless of where the offence occurred. This ensures that investigation is not delayed by jurisdictional issues, particularly in urgent cases such as sexual offences, road accidents, or violent crimes. Once registered, the FIR must be transferred to the appropriate police station for further investigation.

In Mumbai, FIR registration is also supported by digital grievance channels. Complaints can be submitted through the Mumbai Police Citizen Portal, WhatsApp helplines, or designated women’s safety numbers. These platforms help improve access, especially in non-cognizable or follow-up matters.

However, neither online filing nor internal routing excuses delay or refusal where a cognizable offence is disclosed. Police remain legally bound to register an FIR regardless of how the complaint is received.

What to Do If the Police Refuse to Register an FIR

If you approach a police station with a complaint that clearly discloses a cognizable offence such as assault, cheating, criminal intimidation, or sexual harassment, but the police refuse to register an FIR, that refusal is not just improper. It may be illegal.

Under Section 173(1) of the BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 154 CrPC), it is the mandatory duty of the officer-in-charge to register an FIR if the information received discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.

Legal and Procedural Remedies Available

If the police refuse to register your FIR, you may proceed as follows:

1. Submit a Written Complaint to a Senior Officer

Under Section 173(3) BNSS, you can escalate the matter by sending a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police (SP) or the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) having jurisdiction.

• Clearly mention the date, time, and the name of the police station that refused registration.

• Attach a copy of your original complaint with details of the cognizable offence.

• Request a written response or action taken report.

If satisfied that the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the senior officer must direct investigation or personally ensure that an FIR is registered and assigned to an appropriate officer.

2. Approach the Magistrate Under Section 175 BNSS

This is the successor to Section 156(3) CrPC. If no action is taken by senior police officers, you may file an application before the Magistrate having jurisdiction, seeking directions to the police to register an FIR and investigate.

• The application should be supported by an affidavit.

• Annex any documentary proof showing inaction (e.g., email, acknowledgement refusal, WhatsApp chat, call logs).

• The Magistrate may direct registration of FIR and monitor compliance.

3. Constitutional Remedy Under Article 226 (For Urgent or Grave Violations)

Where the refusal is wilful, discriminatory, or part of a pattern of misconduct, especially in sensitive or high-stakes cases, you may file a writ petition before the concerned High Court, seeking:

• A direction to the police to register an FIR;

• Monitoring of the investigation by the Court; or

• Transfer of investigation to an independent agency, if warranted.

Key Point

At the stage of FIR registration, you are not required to furnish proof. The legal threshold under Section 173(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is the mere disclosure of a cognizable offence. However, while proof is not mandatory to initiate the process, it is strongly advisable to preserve and document any material evidence such as messages, photographs, medical reports, CCTV footage, or witness details as early as possible. These materials are critical during investigation and may significantly strengthen the case once formal proceedings commence.

At the same time, it is equally important to note that filing a false FIR or a malicious complaint is a punishable offence. Under Section 225(2) of the BNSS (formerly Section 211 of the IPC), making a false charge with intent to cause harm may result in imprisonment, fine, or both, depending on the nature and gravity of the allegation. Frivolous or vindictive use of the FIR mechanism not only undermines the criminal justice system but also exposes the complainant to potential civil and criminal liability.

When the FIR Is Registered but Nothing Happens

An FIR is only the starting point. If the police fail to investigate by not recording statements, collecting evidence, or filing a final report, the case can collapse. Delayed investigation risks loss of evidence, fading witness memory, and may lead to bail for the accused, weakened prosecution, or even quashing at trial.

Under Section 193 BNSS, investigation must proceed without delay. If it stalls, the complainant may:

• Write to the DCP or Commissioner seeking follow-up, or

• Move the Magistrate under Section 175 BNSS to direct investigation.

• In serious matters, file a writ petition under Article 226 for judicial intervention.

Timely investigation is essential. Without it, even a properly registered FIR may lead nowhere.

Legal Support: Why Early Advice Matters

Timely legal support often determines whether a genuine complaint moves forward or gets lost in procedural delay. Even when the case is legitimate, the absence of properly framed pleadings, incomplete documentation, or delayed follow-up can result in prolonged inaction or worse, adverse judicial inference. Legal counsel helps structure the complaint in accordance with binding law, ensures engagement with the right authority at the right time, and activates remedies under the BNSS and the Constitution when required. When legal support is sought too late, even well-founded complaints may stall within the system, compromising both investigation and outcome. Early intervention is not just about strategy it safeguards access to justice.

The law on FIR registration is well-settled, and institutional frameworks are evolving to enforce it. Yet, in practice, a mix of hesitation, lack of awareness, and systemic inertia often stands between a complainant and effective redress. In such moments, protecting oneself, by acting promptly, preserving evidence, and asserting legal rights, is not just a procedural choice, but a safeguard of dignity and due process. Access to justice begins with being heard. The responsibility to insist on that right is shared by individuals, institutions, and the legal community alike.

References:

1. Mumbai woman duped of ₹3.8 crore by online fraudsters; held in ‘digital custody’ for a month, Economic Times (5 July 2024)

2. Men posed as girls to fish for targets in dating scam; restaurant manager held, Times of India (1 March 2024)

3. T. T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181.

4. Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1.

5. Nishu v. Commissioner of Police, (2014) 12 SCC 546.

6. Lalit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 171.

7. XYZ v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 9 SCC 705.

8. Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 678.

9. XXX v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 4030.

10. Ministry of Home Affairs, Advisory on Compulsory Registration of FIRs, D.O. No. 15011/35/2013-SC/ST-W, dated 10 May 2013.

11. Ministry of Home Affairs, Advisory on Mandatory Registration of FIR and Launch of CCTNS, D.O. No. 15011/29/2015-SC/ST-W, dated 12 October 2015.

12. Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission, Shahnaz Bano Ehsann Ali Shah v. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone VI, Mumbai, Case No. 1155/13/16/2022/255, Order dated 10 January 2023.

13. Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission, Order in Case No. MAS/5/13/30/2021, imposing penalty on police officer for NC misuse (Sections 354, 323 IPC), 2024.

14. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

15. Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Standard Operating Procedure on Preliminary Enquiry under the BNSS, 20 Nov. 2023

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Legal outcomes vary based on specific facts and jurisdictions. Readers are advised to seek independent legal counsel for their particular circumstances. No advocate-client relationship is created by reading this content.