Police are not registering your FIR. Or the investigation is not moving. What can you do?

You report a cognizable offence to the police, but the FIR is not registered.

Or an FIR is registered, but months pass and you see little progress.

What does the law allow you to do?

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) provides a clear statutory route when a police station refuses to record information about a cognizable offence. It also provides a route to approach a Magistrate when the police do not act after the matter is taken to the Superintendent of Police.

But there is an important distinction:

• Refusal to register an FIR is one issue.
• Delay or inadequate progress in an investigation after an FIR is registered is another.

The legal remedy depends on which situation you are facing.

1. Start with a clear complaint

Your complaint should state the basic facts clearly.

Include:

• What happened.
• Date, time and place.
• Who was involved, if known.
• What specific acts occurred.
• Names and contact details of witnesses, if available.
• Documents, photographs, CCTV details or other supporting material.
• Any immediate threat to your safety or to evidence.

Do not exaggerate the allegations. Do not add facts that you cannot support.

A clear complaint makes it easier for the police and, if necessary, the court to understand what offence is alleged.

In Ashish Dave v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 INSC 244, the Supreme Court reiterated that an FIR need not be an encyclopaedia, but it must contain the basic facts and allegations constituting a cognizable offence.

2. A cognizable offence is the key starting point

Section 173(1) BNSS deals with information relating to cognizable offences.

The information may be given orally or through electronic communication to the officer in charge of a police station. An oral complaint must be reduced to writing, read over to the informant and signed. Information sent electronically must be signed by the person giving it within three days.

The provision applies irrespective of the area where the offence was committed.

This is the statutory basis for what is commonly called a “Zero FIR”.

The important point is simple:

You should not be turned away merely because the police station says that the offence occurred outside its territorial area.

3. If the information discloses a cognizable offence, FIR registration is generally mandatory

The Supreme Court Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh held that registration of an FIR is mandatory when the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.

The Court also recognised limited situations in which a preliminary inquiry is permissible.

The BNSS has now created a specific statutory provision dealing with preliminary inquiry in another category of cases.

4. Important BNSS exception: Section 173(3)

Section 173(3) BNSS applies where the information relates to a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more but less than seven years.

In such a case, the officer in charge, with prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and after considering the nature and gravity of the offence, may:

1. conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether there is a prima facie case, within 14 days; or
2. proceed with investigation where a prima facie case exists.

The Supreme Court has explained that Section 173(3) BNSS is a statutory departure from the older Section 154 CrPC framework explained in Lalita Kumari.

It permits a preliminary inquiry even where the information concerns a cognizable offence falling within the three-years-or-more-but-less-than-seven-years category.

In Ashish Dave v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 INSC 244, decided on 27 February 2026, the Supreme Court explained that Section 173(3) BNSS permits a preliminary inquiry, with prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, in cognizable-offence cases punishable with three years or more but less than seven years. The inquiry is to determine whether a prima facie case exists and is to be conducted within fourteen days. Where the preliminary inquiry finds a prima facie case, the FIR should be registered and investigation commenced; where it does not, the informant/complainant should be informed so that the remedy under Section 173(4) can be pursued

So, “the police can keep making inquiries indefinitely” is not the law.

5. What if the police refuse to record your information?

Section 173(4) BNSS provides the next statutory step.

You can send the substance of your information in writing and by post to the concerned Superintendent of Police.

If the SP is satisfied that the information discloses a cognizable offence, the SP can:

• investigate the case personally, or
• direct a subordinate police officer to investigate it.

The officer conducting that investigation has the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.

Practical point

Keep proof that you sent the complaint to the SP.

For example:

• postal receipt,
• delivery record,
• copy of the complaint,
• electronic acknowledgement, where available.

Do not rely only on a verbal conversation.

6. What if the SP route does not resolve the problem?

Section 173(4) itself provides for approaching the Magistrate if the matter remains unresolved.

Section 175(3) BNSS empowers a Magistrate who is competent to take cognizance to order an investigation in accordance with Section 175(1).

But there are important procedural safeguards.

In XXX v. State of Kerala, 2026 INSC 88, decided on 27 January 2026, the Supreme Court examined the interplay between Sections 175(3) and 175(4) BNSS and reaffirmed that an application under Section 175(3) must comply with its procedural safeguards, including the requirement of an affidavit. The Court also held that the statutory route through the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) must be pursued before invoking the Magistrate’s jurisdiction under Section 175(3).

This case was more focused on complaints concerning public servants and alleged offences arising in the course of official duty.

Therefore, the practical sequence is:

Police station → Superintendent of Police → Magistrate under Section 175(3), where appropriate.

Skipping the statutory steps is not a good shortcut.

7. What if the FIR is already registered but the investigation is moving slowly?

This is a different situation.

Section 175(3) is principally a mechanism for a Magistrate to order investigation where the statutory requirements are satisfied. It should not be described as a general application for “speeding up” every investigation.

If an FIR has already been registered, you should first document the specific problem.

For example:

• Important evidence has not been collected.
• A material witness has not been examined.
• Relevant CCTV footage is at risk of being overwritten.
• A known document or electronic record has not been secured.
• Repeated representations about an important investigative step have received no response.

Make a written representation to the Investigating Officer and, where appropriate, the supervisory police officer. State the specific investigative steps you are asking the police to consider.

Keep copies and proof of submission.

If the investigation remains seriously delayed or there is a specific allegation of failure to perform a legal duty, an appropriate judicial remedy might be available depending on the facts and the stage of the case. The exact remedy should not be assumed in every case.

8. “Speedy investigation” does not mean a fixed deadline for every case

There is no single universal number of days within which every criminal investigation must be completed.

The Supreme Court has recognised speedy investigation as part of the constitutional guarantee of fair procedure under Article 21. At the same time, the Court has cautioned against prescribing a mandatory outer time-limit applicable to every investigation. The circumstances of each case matter.

The nature of the offence, number of witnesses, volume of evidence, forensic requirements, number of accused and other circumstances can affect the time required.

Therefore, the better legal objective is:

Lawful, genuine and reasonably prompt investigation.

Not an artificial deadline regardless of the facts.

9. Preserve evidence before it disappears

Some evidence is time-sensitive.

For example:

• CCTV footage may be automatically overwritten.
• Mobile or electronic records may become difficult to obtain.
• Documents may be altered or destroyed.
• Witnesses may become difficult to locate.

Tell the police about such evidence promptly and in writing.

Where you lawfully possess copies of relevant material, preserve the originals and keep secure copies.

Do not alter, edit or fabricate evidence.

10. Keep a complete paper trail

Create one file containing:

• Original complaint.
• Copy of FIR, if registered.
• Proof of submission at the police station.
• Complaint sent to the SP.
• Postal or delivery proof.
• Emails or electronic acknowledgements.
• Photographs, documents and other evidence supplied.
• Names and contact details of important witnesses.
• Written representations regarding specific investigative steps.
• Responses received from the police.

This record becomes important if you later need to demonstrate what you reported, when you reported it and what happened afterwards.

11. One important aspect about videography

The BNSS does not generally require every recording of information about a cognizable offence to be videographed.

Section 173(1) contains a specific videography requirement in cases involving certain specified offences where the person against whom the offence is alleged is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled. In that situation, the information is to be recorded at the person’s residence or another convenient place of choice, in the presence of an interpreter or special educator where applicable, and the recording is to be videographed.

This requirement is NOT a general rule for every FIR.

12. Common mistakes to avoid

Mistake 1: Giving only a vague complaint

“Someone cheated me” is not enough to explain the factual basis of the allegation.

State the material facts.

Mistake 2: Treating every delay as proof of illegal investigation

An investigation can take time for legitimate reasons.

Identify the specific investigative step that has not been taken and why it matters.

Mistake 3: Sending the same complaint repeatedly without proof

Keep documentary evidence of every important submission.

Mistake 4: Going to the Magistrate without following the statutory route

For a Section 175(3) application, the BNSS requires consideration of the application made to the SP under Section 173(4), supported by an affidavit, along with the other safeguards in Section 175(3).

Mistake 5: Exaggerating facts

An inaccurate complaint can damage credibility.

State what you know. Identify what you do not know.

13. Your practical escalation checklist

If your complaint concerns a cognizable offence and the police are not acting:

1. Prepare a clear factual complaint.
2. Submit it to the officer in charge of the police station.
3. Obtain proof of submission and, where applicable, the FIR copy.
4. If the police refuse to record the information, send the substance of the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4).
5. Preserve proof of that submission.
6. If the matter remains unresolved, consider the statutory remedy before the Magistrate under Section 175(3), following its procedural requirements.
7. If an FIR already exists but the investigation is stalled, document the specific investigative failure and use the appropriate supervisory or judicial remedy based on the facts.
8. Preserve time-sensitive evidence immediately.

The bottom line

You do not have to depend only on repeated visits to the police station.

The BNSS provides a statutory escalation mechanism when information about a cognizable offence is not recorded:

Police station → Superintendent of Police → Magistrate, where the statutory requirements are met.

If an FIR has already been registered, the question changes. The focus then becomes whether the investigation is being conducted lawfully and with reasonable promptness, and what specific remedy is appropriate on the facts.

Some Relevant law and authorities

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Sections 173 and 175.
• Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1.
• Ashish Dave v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 INSC 244, decided on 27 February 2026 explaining the operation of Section 173(3) BNSS.
• XXX v. State of Kerala, 2026 INSC 88, decided on 27 January 2026 discussing Section 175(3) BNSS.

Disclaimer

This content is for general legal awareness only. It is not legal advice. Legal outcomes depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.