Introduction

The expression “lodging an FIR” is frequently used as a blanket term that obscures the operational boundaries between giving information, recording it, registering the report, and exercising investigative control. Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), these steps are governed by distinct statutory authorities designed to ensure both functional efficiency and hierarchy-wide accountability.

While Section 173 BNSS establishes the Station House Officer (SHO)/Officer-in-Charge (OC) as the primary authority for receiving information on cognisable offences, Section 30 BNSS vests superior police officers with concurrent statutory powers across their territorial jurisdictions.

Core Statutory Framework: Section 173 vs. Section 30 BNSS

Understanding police authority over first information reports requires distinguishing between ordinary police station-level registration, superior officer intervention, and specific grievance remedies:

Conceptual Distinction: Concurrent Power vs. Specific Remedy

Superior police authority is often mistakenly viewed merely as an “appeal” against an SHO’s refusal. In reality, the BNSS provides two distinct statutory mechanisms alongside an acting-capacity mandate:

• Concurrent Power (Section 30 BNSS): Superior officers (SDPO, SP, DCP, ACP, DIG) hold the full statutory powers of an SHO throughout their jurisdiction and can directly record, register, and investigate an FIR at any time.
• Remedial Pathway (Section 173(4) BNSS): Triggered when an SHO refuses to record information. The complainant may submit the information to the SP, who must then investigate or direct an investigation.
• Acting Authority (Section 2(1)(o) BNSS): If the SHO is absent or incapacitated, the next senior officer present above constable rank automatically exercises all statutory powers of the Officer-in-Charge.

In Short: Section 30 confers proactive supervisory authority, while Section 173(4) provides a targeted remedy for citizen grievances. Together with Section 2(1)(o), they ensure FIR registration is never blocked by station-level bottlenecks.

Operational Escalation Hierarchy

When the Station House Officer (SHO) fails or refuses to record a cognisable offence, the BNSS provides a step‑by‑step pathway to enforce compliance:

• The informant provides information → SHO must register FIR under Section 173(1) BNSS.
• If SHO refuses → The complainant can approach a superior officer (SP/DCP/ACP/DIG) under Section 30 or Section 173(4) BNSS.
• If the superior officer also fails → The complainant may move the judicial magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS.
• Judicial direction → The magistrate can mandate FIR registration and investigation.

In essence: The BNSS ensures that refusal at one level does not block justice. The law provides a clear escalation ladder — SHO → Superior Officer → Magistrate — guaranteeing that cognisable offences are eventually registered and investigated.

Under Section 175(3) BNSS, approaching a judicial magistrate requires prior statutory exhaustion. The applicant must file an affidavit confirming they first submitted the complaint to the SHO under Section 173(1) and then to the SP under Section 173(4). Without fulfilling both preliminary steps, the magistrate cannot entertain the application.

Key Legal Takeaways

• The SHO is Not the Sole Registration Authority: While the Officer-in-Charge is the standard statutory recipient under Section 173 BNSS, Section 30 ensures that police power is not bottlenecked at the station level. A superior officer (e.g., SP, DCP, ACP, SDPO, etc.) acting within their territorial jurisdiction possesses the full legal authority to record, register, and investigate an FIR directly.
• Refusal Triggers Mandatory Escalation: Section 173(4) provides a structured alternative pathway. If an SHO refuses to register a cognisable offence, submitting the written information to the Superintendent of Police obligates the SP—upon satisfaction that a cognisable offence is disclosed—to either investigate personally or assign a subordinate.
• Procedural Safeguards Apply Universally: Whether an FIR is recorded by an SHO under Section 173(1) or by a superior officer invoking Section 30, all statutory mandates—such as reading back the statement, obtaining authentication, providing a free copy to the informant, and complying with the 14-day preliminary inquiry window under Section 173(3) where applicable—remain strictly binding.

State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha (1980): The Supreme Court held that the power to register and investigate an FIR is not restricted solely to the local Officer-in-Charge. Under statutory provisions (now Section 30 of the BNSS, formerly Section 36 of the CrPC), superior police officers possess full authority to exercise the same powers throughout their local area, including registering an FIR and directing investigations.

Conclusion

The BNSS framework makes it clear that the responsibility for FIR registration does not rest solely with the Station House Officer/Officer-in-Charge. While the SHO remains the primary authority under Section 173, superior officers under Section 30 possess concurrent powers to record and register FIRs directly, ensuring that access to justice is not bottlenecked at the police station level. In cases of refusal, Section 173(4) provides a structured remedy through escalation to the Superintendent of Police/Deputy Commissioner or Commissioner of Police, and ultimately Section 175(3) empowers the Magistrate to mandate registration. Together, these provisions establish a layered safeguard system where concurrent powers and specific remedies guarantee that cognisable offences are promptly acted upon, reinforcing transparency, accountability, and the rule of law.

• Officer-in-Charge (OC) of a Police Station
• Efficient Reporting and Deployment of Police Personnel During VVIP Visits in India
• A Subsequent Supreme Court Decision — Not a Ground for Review
• Effect of contradictory stand before High Court and Registrar of Trademarks
• Judicial Recusal in India – Grounds, Procedure, Appellate Remedies