When FIR Registration Requires Preliminary Inquiry Under CrPC and BNSS: Supreme Court Explains

Case Title :  Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025)

Context: A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that when allegation is of the commission of offence covered by law referred to in Article 19 (2) of Indian Constitution, if Section 173 (3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS) is applicable, it is always appropriate to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out. 

The Court made the observation while refusing to entertain a Writ Petition challenging the immunity granted to judges from immediate criminal prosecution, citing the recent controversy involving Justice Yashwant Varma and seeking an FIR against him.

Supreme Court Guidelines on FIR Registration and Preliminary Inquiry Under CrPC & BNSS – A Visual Breakdown

Background of Case 

This case is all about the right to free speech and how it’s being challenged, even after 75 years of India’s Constitution. The appellant, a Rajya Sabha member, posted a video on social media with a poem playing in the background. After attending a mass wedding event in December 2024, organized on a municipal councillor’s birthday, the video went live. Soon after, a complaint was filed against him at the Jamnagar Police Station, accusing the poem of stirring hatred between communities, hurting religious sentiments, and even threatening national unity. 

The big question here is whether his post was genuinely harmful or if it was just an expression of his thoughts, which is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. This case shows how, even after so many years, authorities either ignore or misunderstand the fundamental right to free speech. It also raises concerns about whether laws are being used fairly or just to silence voices. In a democracy, where free expression is a pillar, this case could shape how speech is treated in the digital age.

In this matter the FIR invoked serious charges under Sections 196, 197(1), 302, 299, 57 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, all alleging promotion of enmity, intent to outrage religious sentiments, and abetment of crimes through provocative content.

The Appellant filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) read with Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to quash the FIR, But the Gujarat High Court declined to quash the FIR, citing that the investigation was in its early stages. Challenging this order, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

You can access both Old Acts and New Acts easily through our AI-powered tool at  lawttorney.ai. The image below provides a glimpse of how easy it is..!

What are the changes made in BNSS, 2023 with respect to FIR Registration and Preliminary Inquiry

Under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the FIR must be registered immediately upon receiving information about a cognizable offense, without any prior inquiry. However, the changes made under the new laws, allows for the preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR in certain cases. This change could impact how complaints are handled, possibly preventing frivolous cases but also raising concerns about delays in justice.

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the scope of a preliminary inquiry is limited. As held in the case of Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014), only a restricted preliminary inquiry is permissible to determine whether the information received discloses a cognizable offence. Such an inquiry can be conducted only if the information does not explicitly reveal the commission of a cognizable offence but suggests the need for further investigation.

You can read more about the reference case on Lawttornery.ai, where we provide in-depth legal analysis.

Supreme Court Observation 

The Court emphasized that under Section 154 of CrPC and Section 173(1) of BNSS, if the information indicates a cognizable offence, registering an FIR is mandatory. However, Section 173(3) BNSS provides an exception, allowing a preliminary inquiry in specific cases.

Further, the court read both the original Urdu poem and its English translation and found that it did not target any religion, caste, or community. Instead of promoting violence, the poem actually encouraged people to stay peaceful and face injustice with love.

Justice Oka said the poem was symbolic and not a threat to national unity or public order. It was simply an expression of dissent and resistance in a peaceful way, which is protected under the right to free speech (Article 19(1)(a)).

It is further noted that, In such cases it is necessary to to protect constitutional values and prevent misuse of the law.

The Court clarified the following things:

1. If the information discloses a cognizable offence, the police must register an FIR, except in cases covered under Section 173(3) BNSS.

2. Section 173(3) BNSS permits a preliminary inquiry if the offence carries imprisonment of three years or more but less than seven years, provided prior approval is obtained from a superior officer (at least a Deputy Superintendent of Police).

3. Even when a cognizable offence is reported, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to determine if a prima facie case exists before proceeding further.

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR against Imran Pratapgadhi and concluding that:

1. No prima facie offence was established.

2. FIR registration was mechanical and disproportionate.

3. The poem fell within the scope of protected speech.

4. The police failed to exercise discretion under Section 173(3) BNSS for conducting a preliminary inquiry.

This ruling reinforces the importance of police discretion and adherence to procedural safeguards in FIR registration.