The Allahabad High Court held that a Special Court or Magistrate is not obliged to order FIR registration merely because an applicant from the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community files an application under Section 173(4) of BNSS.
The Allahabad High Court clarified that a Special Court or Magistrate is not obliged to order the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) based solely on an application filed under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) when the applicant belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community.
Justice Anil Kumar-X, in dismissing a criminal appeal, asserted that the Court’s judicial discretion remains intact and is not limited by the provisions of the SC/ST Act that are designed to govern the duties of public servants.
The Criminal Appeal (No. 2318 of 2026) was brought forth by Kusum Kannaujiya, who contested an order from January 19, 2026, passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) in Azamgarh.
The appellant had sought a directive under Section 173(4) BNSS (which replaces Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.) for FIR registration.
The Trial Court dismissed this application after an inquiry into the allegations, prompting the present appeal.
The appellant’s counsel argued that the Trial Court’s decision to conduct an inquiry rather than mandating the registration of an FIR was not legally valid.
Citing the judgment in Asha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, it was claimed that Section 4 of the SC/ST Act and Rule 5 of the SC/ST Rules prohibit such inquiries. The appellant maintained that once an offence under the Act is reported, the Court should direct the registration of an FIR.
In contrast, the Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the State contended that the SC/ST Act does not impose such limitations on Special Courts. He stressed that Courts should not function as mere “post offices” and must retain their judicial discretion when addressing applications under Section 173(4) BNSS.
The Court identified two key questions: whether a Special Court is required to direct FIR registration for SC/ST victims under Section 173(4) BNSS, and whether Section 4 of the SC/ST Act and Rule 5 of the SC/ST Rules diminish judicial discretion in these matters.
Concerning the precedent cited (Asha v. State of U.P.), the Court noted that while that case deemed some inquiries to be prohibited under Section 18-A of the SC/ST Act, a closer examination of the statutes revealed a different legislative intent.
The Court observed that Section 4 of the SC/ST Act pertains to punishing public servants who neglect their duties, including failing to register FIRs or investigate adequately. Similarly, Rule 5 defines the procedure for police to register FIRs.
The Court remarked,
“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 in relation to registration and investigation of offences under the Act, and they do not curtail the judicial discretion of the Court while considering an application under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.”
The Court further clarified that the power conferred by Section 173(4) BNSS is discretionary. It referenced the Supreme Court ruling in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, emphasizing that a Magistrate must apply their judicial mind and should not simply direct FIR registration as a routine action.
The Court also referred to Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, underlining that in cases involving the SC/ST Act, the Court must determine whether the allegations prima facie indicate an offence related to the victim’s caste.
The High Court concluded that a Special Court is not merely a facilitator for FIR registrations.
It stated,
“The Special Court or Magistrate is not bound to direct registration of an FIR in every case merely because the applicant belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. The Court must first evaluate the allegations placed before it and thereafter decide whether it is appropriate to direct investigation by the police or to proceed with the matter as a complaint case.”
Finding no error in the Trial Court’s approach to assess the allegations and apply its judicial reasoning, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Kusum Kannaujiya vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others