The Allahabad High Court has held that a Special Court or Magistrate is not automatically bound to direct the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) on an application filed under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) solely on the ground that the applicant belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community.
Justice Anil Kumar-X, while dismissing a criminal appeal, clarified that the judicial discretion of the Court remains intact and is not curtailed by the specific provisions of the SC/ST Act intended to regulate the duties of public servants.
Background
The Criminal Appeal (No. 2318 of 2026) was filed by Kusum Kannaujiya challenging an order dated January 19, 2026, passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Azamgarh. The appellant had filed an application under Section 173(4) BNSS (the successor to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.) seeking a direction for the registration of an FIR. The Trial Court dismissed the application after conducting an inquiry into the allegations, leading to the present appeal.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant argued that the Trial Court’s decision to conduct an inquiry instead of directing the registration of an FIR was legally unsustainable. Relying on the judgment in Asha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, it was contended that Section 4 of the SC/ST Act and Rule 5 of the SC/ST Rules prohibit the Court from conducting such an inquiry. The appellant maintained that once information regarding an offence under the Act is provided, the Court must direct the registration of an FIR.
Conversely, the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the State argued that the SC/ST Act does not impose such restrictions on Special Courts. He submitted that Courts are not intended to act as mere “post offices” and retain their judicial discretion when considering applications under Section 173(4) BNSS.
Court’s Analysis
The Court framed two primary questions: whether a Special Court is bound 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 curtail judicial discretion in such matters.
Regarding the precedent cited by the appellant (Asha v. State of U.P.), the Court observed that while that case held certain inquiries to be prohibited under Section 18-A of the SC/ST Act, a careful examination of the statutes revealed a different legislative intent.
The Court noted that Section 4 of the SC/ST Act deals with the punishment of public servants who neglect their duties, such as failing to register an FIR or investigate properly. Similarly, Rule 5 prescribes the procedure for police officers to register FIRs.
The Court observed:
“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 under Section 173(4) BNSS is discretionary. It cited the Supreme Court judgment in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, noting that a Magistrate must apply judicial mind and not mechanically direct FIR registration. Furthermore, referring to Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, the Court emphasized that in SC/ST Act matters, the Court must examine if the allegations prima facie disclose an offence connected to the victim’s caste.
Decision
The High Court concluded that a Special Court is not a mere conduit for FIR registration. The Court held:
“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 illegality in the Trial Court’s approach to examine the allegations and apply its judicial mind, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Kusum Kannaujiya vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others
- Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2318 of 2026
- Judge: Hon’ble Anil Kumar-X, J.
- Date: March 9, 2026
