When Will a Magistrate Order an FIR Under BNSS 175(3)?

A Magistrate can order the police to register your FIR under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, but only after you have climbed the full escalation ladder first. You cannot walk straight into a Magistrate's court the way you often could under the old Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The Supreme Court confirmed this in Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 139 (16 January 2025). This guide walks you through exactly what you must do before a Magistrate will act, and why the Magistrate must now apply mind and give reasons.

Under Section 175(3) BNSS a Magistrate will order an FIR only when three things are true:

1. You first reported the offence to the police and the officer in charge refused to register it.
2. You then escalated to the Superintendent of Police (SP) under Section 173(4) BNSS, with an affidavit, and that did not work either.
3. You then file an application before the Magistrate, attaching proof of the above, and the Magistrate, after applying mind, finds an order is genuinely needed.

This is a real change from the old law. The Court in Om Prakash Ambadkar held that Section 175(3) BNSS adds pre-conditions that Section 156(3) CrPC did not contain, and that the Magistrate must not forward your complaint mechanically.

Think of getting an FIR registered as a three-rung ladder. You must stand on each rung before you reach the next.

Go to the police station that has jurisdiction and give your information about a cognizable offence. If they record it, you have your FIR and you are done. The problem this guide solves is what happens when the officer in charge refuses to register it.

1. Give your complaint in writing and keep a copy.
2. Note the date, time and the name of the officer who received or refused it.
3. Ask for an acknowledgement or a receipt of your written complaint.

This is the new compulsory rung. If the officer in charge refuses to register your information, Section 173(4) BNSS lets you send the substance of that information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police. The Supreme Court in Om Prakash Ambadkar treated this SP application as a step you must take before you can move the Magistrate under Section 175(3).

1. Address it to the Superintendent of Police of the district.
2. Set out the same facts you gave the police station, and state clearly that the officer in charge refused to register your information.
3. Support the application with an affidavit, because Section 175(3) requires your eventual Magistrate application to be supported by an affidavit.
4. Keep the postal proof and a copy of the SP application. You will need it for the Magistrate.

If the SP is satisfied that a cognizable offence is disclosed, the SP can investigate or direct an investigation. If the SP also does nothing, you move to the third rung.

Now you file an application before the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance. Under Section 175(3) BNSS this application must be:

1. Supported by an affidavit. This is mandatory. A bare petition is not enough.
2. Accompanied by a copy of your Section 173(4) application to the SP. This proves you climbed the lower rungs first.

The Magistrate then considers the submissions of the officer in charge about why the FIR was refused, may conduct such inquiry as the Magistrate deems necessary, and only then decides whether to direct registration and investigation.

The heart of Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra is that a Magistrate cannot rubber-stamp these applications. The Court, speaking through Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, held that an order directing investigation should issue only after application of mind by the Magistrate, and only when the assistance of the investigating agency is genuinely necessary for the ends of justice.

Section 175(3) BNSS builds two new checks into the law that Section 156(3) CrPC did not spell out:

1. The Magistrate must consider the police officer's submissions on why the FIR was refused.
2. The Magistrate may conduct an inquiry before directing investigation.

So the order you are asking for is now a reasoned judicial decision, not an automatic forwarding of your complaint to the police.

It helps to know what happened, because the case is a warning as much as a roadmap. The complaint there did not, in the Court's view, disclose a cognizable offence. The Magistrate had nonetheless directed a police investigation, and the High Court upheld it.

The Supreme Court set aside both orders. It held that continuing the investigation would be an abuse of the process of law, because the Magistrate had directed it without the application of mind that Section 175(3) now demands. So the case did not order an FIR. It quashed an order that had been passed mechanically, and in doing so it laid down the pre-conditions for the next person who applies.

Real-life takeaway: In Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 139, decided 16 January 2025), the Supreme Court refused to let a police investigation continue because the Magistrate had ordered it without applying mind and without a cognizable offence being made out. The lesson for you: bring a genuine cognizable offence, climb every rung of the ladder, and put your proof on affidavit.

• Your written complaint to the police station, with the date and proof of refusal.
• Your Section 173(4) application to the Superintendent of Police, with postal proof.
• An affidavit setting out the facts and the refusals.
• Copies of any evidence that shows a cognizable offence (medical reports, photographs, messages, witness details).
• A clear, dated narrative of events in chronological order.

• Skipping the SP rung. Going straight to the Magistrate without the Section 173(4) application is the most common fatal gap under BNSS.
• No affidavit. Section 175(3) requires your application to be supported by an affidavit. Without it the Magistrate cannot proceed.
• No cognizable offence. As Om Prakash Ambadkar shows, if the facts do not disclose a cognizable offence, the Magistrate should not order an FIR at all.
• Expecting a rubber stamp. The Magistrate now considers the police submissions and may hold an inquiry. Prepare for a reasoned hearing, not an automatic order.

Use this as a starting template for the second rung. Adapt the facts to your case.

To,
The Superintendent of Police,
[District] Police, [State]

Subject: Information of a cognizable offence under Section 173(4) BNSS, 2023, after refusal by the officer in charge

Respected Sir/Madam,

1. I submitted written information of a cognizable offence at [Police Station]
   on [date] (copy enclosed). The officer in charge refused to register an FIR.

2. The facts disclose the following cognizable offence(s): [describe briefly].

3. I therefore send the substance of this information to you under
   Section 173(4) of the BNSS, 2023, and request that an FIR be registered
   and investigated, or that you direct an investigation.

4. This application is supported by my affidavit, enclosed herewith.

Enclosures: (a) copy of complaint to the police station; (b) affidavit;
            (c) supporting evidence.

[Name, address, signature, date]

If the SP does not act, attach a copy of this application and the affidavit to your application before the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS.

The right to information is a useful parallel tool when the police stall. You can file an RTI application with the police public information officer to obtain the station diary entry, the action taken on your complaint, and any supervisory review. That paper trail strengthens your affidavit before the Magistrate. Our guide on using RTI when an FIR is not registered explains how. You can draft the RTI itself using our AI RTI Drafter, and learn the wider strategy in The RTI Playbook.

No. Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 139) makes clear that Section 175(3) BNSS expects you to first approach the police and then the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), with an affidavit, before moving the Magistrate. This is the main change from the old Section 156(3) CrPC.

The affidavit should state your identity, the facts that make out a cognizable offence, the date you complained to the police station, the fact and date of the refusal, and the date you escalated to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4). It is sworn so the Magistrate can rely on it.

No. The Magistrate must apply mind, consider the police officer's submissions on the refusal, and may hold an inquiry. The order issues only when a cognizable offence is disclosed and an investigation is genuinely necessary. In Om Prakash Ambadkar the Supreme Court set aside an order passed without this application of mind.

Section 156(3) CrPC let a Magistrate direct an investigation more directly. Section 175(3) BNSS adds pre-conditions: a prior application to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), an affidavit, consideration of the police submissions, and a possible inquiry. The Supreme Court highlighted these differences in Om Prakash Ambadkar.

It was decided by the Supreme Court of India on 16 January 2025, by a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, and is reported as 2025 INSC 139.

• Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025 INSC 139, Supreme Court of India, 16 January 2025: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/141233097/
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 173 and 175 (Government of India).

• RTI when an FIR is not registered
• The RTI Act, 2005
• AI RTI Drafter

Reviewed by Dr. Shrawan Kumar Pathak. Edited by Kashvi Pathak.