The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has stayed the investigation into a First Information Report (FIR) registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023, observing that the police proceeded to lodge the FIR despite a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) already being registered for the same incident, without obtaining the necessary order from a Magistrate.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani, passed the order in a writ petition challenging the police action as a violation of Section 174(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), 2023.
Background of the Case
The writ petition was filed by Pankaj Kumar and Another, seeking to quash the FIR dated December 17, 2025, registered as Case Crime No. 0296 of 2025 at Police Station Jankipuram, District Lucknow. The FIR was registered under Sections 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt) and 117(2) (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) of the B.N.S., 2023.
The petitioners submitted that for the exact same incident mentioned in the impugned FIR, Respondent No. 3 (the complainant) had earlier filed a complaint. This initial complaint had already resulted in the registration of a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) on October 22, 2025.
Arguments of the Petitioners
Learned counsel for the petitioners, Desh Deepak Singh and Nandini Verma, contended that the police authorities committed a patent error in lodging the FIR subsequent to the NCR.
They placed specific reliance on Section 174(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023. The counsel argued that once information regarding the commission of a non-cognizable offence is given to an officer in charge of a police station and duly recorded, the statutory procedure bars further police action without judicial oversight.
The counsel submitted that:
“…once the information has been given to an office in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence and the same has duly been recorded consequently, no police officer shall thereafter investigate of a non-cognizable case without the order of the learned Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.”
It was argued that since the NCR was recorded on October 22, 2025, and there was no order from a Magistrate permitting investigation, the subsequent registration of the impugned FIR was legally unsustainable.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The Court, upon hearing the counsel and perusing the records, noted that an NCR for the same offence for which the impugned FIR was filed had indeed been lodged and registered on October 22, 2025.
The Bench examined the provisions of the new procedural code, specifically Section 174(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023. The Court observed:
“Section 174 (2) of B.N.S.S, 2023 itself provided that no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of the learned Magistrate.”
Applying this provision to the facts of the case, the Court found that the police had proceeded without the requisite judicial authorization. The Judges remarked:
“There is no order of the learned Magistrate per which the authorities have been required to investigate the matter and consequently, prima facie there cannot be any occasion for lodging of the impugned First Information Report.”
Decision and Directions
Holding that a “prima facie case for interference is made out,” the High Court stayed the impugned FIR dated December 17, 2025, until further orders.
The Court took a serious view of the procedural lapse and directed the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh (Respondent No. 1), to file a personal affidavit. The Court ordered that the affidavit must indicate:
- How the impugned FIR was lodged despite the registration of an NCR and the specific bar under Section 174(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023.
- If the FIR is found to be against the provisions of the Code of 2023, “as to why exemplary cost should not be imposed against the officers who have proceeded with lodging of the said First Information Report.”
The Court granted all respondents four weeks to file a counter affidavit and two weeks thereafter for a rejoinder affidavit.
Case Details:
Case Title: Pankaj Kumar And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 28 of 2026
Coram: Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani
Counsel for Petitioners: Desh Deepak Singh, Nandini Verma
Counsel for Respondents: G.A. (Government Advocate)
