Patna High Court Orders FIR and CID Probe Against Police Officer: Remedies When Police Refuse to Register a Case

Direct Answer: When information given to the police discloses a cognizable offence, registration of an FIR is ordinarily mandatory. If the officer in charge refuses, the complainant may approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and thereafter move the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) with the required application and affidavit. In an exceptional case involving alleged police brutality, repeated official inaction and a serious violation of Article 21, the Patna High Court may exercise writ jurisdiction and direct registration of an FIR and an independent investigation.

In Manish Kumar v. State of Bihar & Others, the Patna High Court directed an FIR to be registered against a former Station House Officer who was accused of brutally assaulting the petitioner and breaking both his legs. The Court also directed the Director General of Police, Bihar, to obtain a compliance report and transfer the investigation to the Crime Investigation Department because the allegations were against a police officer.

This judgment is important for victims in Bihar who allege police assault, custodial violence, unlawful use of force or refusal by the police to register a complaint against another police officer. It also explains the relationship between the ordinary statutory remedies under the BNSS and the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.

Case Snapshot

Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna.
Bench or Justice: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar.
Case name: Manish Kumar v. State of Bihar & Others.
Case number: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2515 of 2024.
Neutral citation or reported citation: Not specified in the reported update or official source.
Date of judgment: 16 June 2026.
Time of pronouncement: Not specified in the reported update or official source.
Uploading and transmission date recorded in the judgment copy: 17 June 2026.
Date and time of reported legal update: 21 July 2026 at 6:05 a.m., as displayed by the reporting publication.
Main legal issue: Whether an FIR should be registered against a police officer where the written allegations disclosed a serious cognizable offence but the police authorities had failed to register the case.
Final outcome: The writ petition was allowed. Registration of the FIR was directed, investigation was entrusted to the CID, and the DGP was directed to submit a compliance report to the Registrar General within thirty days.
Relevant provisions: Article 21 of the Constitution of India; Section 197 CrPC and the corresponding Section 218 BNSS; Section 156(3) CrPC and the corresponding Section 175(3) BNSS. Section 173(4) BNSS is also relevant to the ordinary remedy after refusal by the police station.

Read the publicly available alternative copy of the judgment

Visit the official Patna High Court website

What Was Alleged Before the Patna High Court?

The petitioner alleged that on 4 July 2024, while he was in village Chaugaya in connection with the online uploading of land-title documents, a police vehicle arrived carrying the Station House Officer of Murar Police Station and other police personnel.

According to the written allegation recorded in the judgment, the officer called the petitioner, asked about him and, after learning that he belonged to a particular caste, abused and assaulted him with a danda. The petitioner alleged that both of his legs were broken in the assault.

The petitioner annexed an X-ray report to the writ petition. The State’s counter-affidavit did not dispute that the petitioner’s legs had been fractured, but the police claimed that the injuries resulted from the petitioner slipping during rainy weather rather than from police assault.

The petitioner’s core grievance was not merely about the truth of the rival versions. His immediate grievance was that, despite written complaints to the police authorities, Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate, no FIR had been registered.

What Did the Patna High Court Decide?

The High Court held that, at the FIR-registration stage, the Court was not required to conduct a trial or determine whether every allegation was ultimately true. The immediate question was whether the written allegations, taken at face value, disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence.

The Court found that serious cognizable offences were prima facie disclosed. It therefore directed the Station House Officer of Murar Police Station to register an FIR against Kamal Nayan Pandey, who was stated to be the officer in charge at the relevant time.

The Court issued the following material directions:

The concerned police station was directed to register an FIR against the former Station House Officer.
The Director General of Police, Bihar, was directed to obtain a compliance report regarding registration of the FIR.
The investigation was directed to be entrusted to the Crime Investigation Department because the accused was a police officer.
The DGP was directed to send a compliance report to the Registrar General of the Patna High Court within thirty days.
The petitioner was given liberty to approach the High Court again for a CBI investigation if he remained dissatisfied even with the CID investigation.

Important: The direction permitting a future request for CBI investigation did not automatically transfer the case to the CBI. It preserved the petitioner’s liberty to file a further writ petition if the CID investigation was demonstrably unsatisfactory.

Why Is Registration of an FIR Important?

An FIR formally activates the criminal-investigation process in relation to a cognizable offence. It creates an official record, enables collection and preservation of evidence, brings the investigation under statutory and judicial supervision, and reduces the risk that a serious complaint may disappear into an informal inquiry.

The Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh established that where information clearly discloses a cognizable offence, registration of an FIR is mandatory. A limited preliminary inquiry is permissible only in recognised exceptional situations and only to determine whether a cognizable offence is disclosed—not to conduct a full assessment of the truthfulness of the accusation before registration.

The BNSS now governs criminal procedure for matters arising after its commencement. Section 173 deals with information relating to cognizable offences, while Section 175 deals with the police power to investigate and the Magistrate’s authority to direct an investigation.

Read the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on India Code

Stage-Wise Procedure When Police Refuse to Register an FIR

Stage 1: Obtain Immediate Medical Assistance

Where the complaint concerns physical assault, custodial violence or injuries caused by police personnel, medical documentation should not be delayed. The victim should seek treatment from the nearest appropriate hospital and preserve all medical papers.

Important medical material may include:

Emergency registration papers;
Medico-legal report, where prepared;
Injury report;
X-ray, CT scan, MRI or other diagnostic reports;
Prescriptions and treatment records;
Hospital admission and discharge summary;
Photographs of visible injuries with original electronic metadata; and
Bills establishing the treatment timeline.

Stage 2: Submit a Clear Written Complaint to the Police Station

The complaint should state the date, approximate time, place, names or descriptions of the officers involved, sequence of events, injuries, witnesses, vehicle details and available evidence. It should distinguish facts personally witnessed by the complainant from facts later communicated by others.

A receiving stamp, diary number, general diary reference, electronic acknowledgment, postal receipt or other proof of submission should be preserved. The complainant should retain an identical copy of everything submitted.

Stage 3: Approach the Superintendent of Police Under Section 173(4) BNSS

If the officer in charge refuses to record the information, the substance of the complaint may be sent in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned under Section 173(4) BNSS.

If the Superintendent of Police is satisfied that the information discloses a cognizable offence, the Superintendent may investigate the matter personally or direct a subordinate police officer to conduct the investigation.

The representation should ordinarily enclose:

The original written complaint;
Proof that the police station received or refused it;
Medical papers;
Photographs, videos or audio material;
Names and contact details of witnesses;
Any complaint made to senior administrative authorities; and
A request for preservation of CCTV, station-diary, vehicle-log and communication records.

Stage 4: Move the Jurisdictional Magistrate Under Section 175(3) BNSS

Where the police station and Superintendent of Police do not provide an effective remedy, an application may be moved before the competent Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS.

The Supreme Court has explained that the BNSS procedure requires the Magistrate to consider the complainant’s prior application to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4). The application before the Magistrate must be properly supported by an affidavit. The Magistrate may conduct such inquiry as considered necessary and consider the submissions of the police officer concerning the refusal to register the FIR.

A Magistrate application should therefore not be a casual, unsupported allegation. It should contain a precise chronology, proof of prior approaches to the police, supporting records, the offences prima facie disclosed and the specific investigation requested.

Stage 5: Consider a Private Complaint Before the Magistrate

Depending on the facts, the complainant may also pursue a private complaint before the competent criminal court. The choice between seeking a direction for police investigation and pursuing a complaint case depends on the nature of the evidence, need for recovery or forensic investigation, identity of the accused and urgency of preserving official records.

Stage 6: Invoke Patna High Court Jurisdiction in an Exceptional Case

Ordinarily, a High Court does not become the first forum for every grievance concerning non-registration of an FIR. The statutory remedies before the Superintendent of Police and Magistrate are normally expected to be used.

However, writ jurisdiction may become relevant where the facts demonstrate exceptional circumstances, such as:

The alleged perpetrators are themselves police officers;
The complaint discloses grave violence or a direct threat to life and liberty;
Senior police authorities have repeatedly failed to act;
Evidence controlled by the police is at immediate risk of destruction;
The local investigating machinery has an apparent conflict of interest;
The victim faces intimidation, retaliation or continued unlawful detention;
The inaction produces a direct and serious violation of Article 21; or
The available statutory remedy is shown to be ineffective in the exceptional factual setting.

In the Manish Kumar case, the Patna High Court considered it unjust to merely send the petitioner back to the Magistrate after his complaints against the police officer had already gone unheard by senior authorities.

What Does Section 175(4) BNSS Mean in a Complaint Against a Public Servant?

Section 175(4) BNSS introduces an additional procedure where a complaint is made against a public servant for an alleged offence arising in the course of discharge of official duties. Before directing investigation in such a matter, the Magistrate is required to receive a report from the officer superior to the accused public servant and consider the public servant’s assertions regarding the situation that led to the alleged incident.

This safeguard does not mean that every criminal act committed by a person holding public office becomes an official act. The central question is whether the alleged act has a reasonable connection with the discharge or purported discharge of official duty.

A police officer conducting a lawful arrest, search or crowd-control operation may be performing an official function even if the manner of performance is challenged. In contrast, an allegation of gratuitous brutality, personal violence or conduct wholly unrelated to any lawful police purpose may fall outside official duty.

The Supreme Court examined the new structure of Sections 173 and 175 BNSS in a judgment delivered on 27 January 2026. It explained the prior-complaint, affidavit, inquiry and public-servant safeguards built into the BNSS.

Read the Supreme Court’s 2026 judgment on Sections 173 and 175 BNSS

Is Government Sanction Required Before Prosecuting a Police Officer?

Section 218 BNSS corresponds broadly to the earlier protection contained in Section 197 CrPC. It concerns previous sanction for prosecution of specified public servants where the alleged offence was committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty.

The Patna High Court held in the present case that no sanction was required on the allegations before it because the alleged brutal assault was not part of the police officer’s official duty.

This does not establish that sanction is unnecessary in every criminal case against a police officer. The result depends upon the alleged act, the officer’s position, the applicable statutory protection and the connection—if any—between the act and official functions.

Practical legal test: The designation of the accused is not decisive by itself. The court examines whether the alleged act had a reasonable relationship with official duty or was an independent criminal act committed under the colour of office.

Why Did the Court Transfer the Investigation to CID?

An investigation must be fair not only to the complainant but also to the accused. Where the accused is a serving or former member of the same police establishment that would ordinarily investigate the case, an institutional conflict may arise.

The Patna High Court therefore directed that the investigation be entrusted to the Crime Investigation Department. The direction was case-specific and based on the allegation against a police officer.

A victim seeking transfer of investigation should normally demonstrate more than dissatisfaction with the anticipated result. Relevant factors may include:

The accused officer’s influence over the local police station;
Failure to register or properly investigate the complaint;
Manipulation or disappearance of official records;
Threats to witnesses;
Failure to collect medical, electronic or CCTV evidence;
Investigative steps being conducted by direct subordinates or colleagues of the accused; and
Material showing a reasonable apprehension that the local investigation will not be independent.

Can the High Court Transfer an Investigation to the CBI?

Constitutional courts possess the power in an appropriate case to direct a CBI investigation, but such a direction is extraordinary. It is not granted merely because a complainant prefers the CBI or disagrees with an investigative step.

In the present judgment, the Patna High Court first selected the CID as the independent investigating agency. It preserved liberty for the petitioner to file another writ petition seeking a CBI investigation if the CID investigation also proved unsatisfactory.

A future request for CBI investigation would require specific material demonstrating why the existing investigation is unfair, compromised, ineffective or incapable of protecting the constitutional and evidentiary interests involved.

Documents Required for Legal Action

A victim preparing a representation, Magistrate application or criminal writ petition should organise the record chronologically. The following documents may be relevant:

Identity and address proof of the complainant;
Complete written complaint submitted to the police station;
Receiving, diary number or proof of refusal;
Representation to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS;
Postal receipt, tracking report and delivery confirmation;
Complaints made to the DGP, District Magistrate or other authority;
Medical examination, injury and diagnostic reports;
Original photographs, videos and audio files;
CCTV location details and preservation requests;
Witness names, addresses and contact details;
Call records, messages or threat communications available with the victim;
Details of the police vehicle, station, officers and uniform identification;
Copies of any departmental inquiry or preliminary report;
Orders passed by the Magistrate or other court; and
A date-wise chronology explaining every approach made to the authorities.

Applicable Court, Forum and Jurisdiction

Police Station

Information relating to a cognizable offence may be submitted to the police. The BNSS permits such information to be given irrespective of the area where the offence was committed, supporting the concept commonly known as a Zero FIR, with the case later transmitted to the police station having territorial jurisdiction.

Superintendent of Police

The Superintendent of Police of the concerned district is the statutory superior authority under Section 173(4) BNSS when the police station refuses to record the complaint.

Jurisdictional Magistrate

An application under Section 175(3) BNSS should be filed before the competent Magistrate having jurisdiction under the statutory scheme, along with the prior representation, affidavit and supporting record.

Patna High Court

The Patna High Court exercises constitutional jurisdiction throughout the State of Bihar. A criminal writ petition may be considered in an exceptional case involving a serious violation of fundamental rights, failure of statutory authorities, threat to evidence or a demonstrated need for an independent investigation.

Limitation and Delay

A victim of serious police violence should act promptly. Delay can result in loss of CCTV footage, overwriting of electronic systems, fading witness memory, alteration of station records and difficulty in medically correlating injuries with the alleged incident.

There is no single short limitation period that applies identically to every request for registration of a cognizable offence. However, unexplained delay may affect the practical and evidentiary strength of the complaint.

A constitutional writ petition is not governed by a routine statutory limitation period in the same manner as an appeal, but the High Court may refuse relief on account of unexplained delay or laches. Every delay should therefore be explained through documents, medical incapacity, fear, detention, intimidation or the chronology of representations already made.

Interim Relief That May Be Sought

Depending on the facts and urgency, a complainant may seek appropriate interim directions such as:

Immediate medical examination or treatment;
Protection against threats or retaliation;
Preservation of CCTV recordings;
Preservation of station diary, general diary and case-diary material;
Preservation of police vehicle GPS and movement logs;
Preservation of wireless, call and duty-roster records;
Direction that the accused officer should not supervise the investigation;
Transfer of the investigation to an independent unit;
Periodic status reports before the court; and
Protection of material witnesses.

Interim relief is discretionary. The request should be specific, proportionate and supported by facts showing urgency or a real risk of evidence being lost.

Legal Grounds and Tests

1. Does the complaint disclose a cognizable offence?

At the registration stage, the police and court examine whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose a cognizable offence. A final assessment of guilt is not required at this stage.

2. Has the statutory complaint process been followed?

The record should show the complaint to the police station, the representation to the Superintendent of Police and, where applicable, the Magistrate application supported by affidavit.

3. Is the accused officer’s alleged act connected with official duty?

This affects the applicability of Sections 175(4) and 218 BNSS. The court examines the nature of the act, not merely the officer’s designation.

4. Is there a conflict of interest in the local investigation?

Where police officers are accused, the complainant may need to demonstrate why investigation by the same local unit creates a reasonable apprehension of bias or interference.

5. Does the case justify exceptional writ intervention?

The High Court considers the gravity of the alleged violation, failure of ordinary remedies, risk to life or evidence, official inaction and whether directing the victim back to the ordinary process would provide an effective remedy.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Giving only an oral complaint and keeping no proof;
Failing to obtain immediate medical documentation;
Editing, compressing or forwarding original electronic evidence repeatedly;
Not preserving the original device containing photographs or videos;
Writing an emotional complaint without a clear chronology;
Making exaggerated allegations unsupported by available records;
Not approaching the Superintendent of Police before moving the Magistrate;
Filing a Section 175(3) application without the required affidavit and supporting documents;
Approaching the High Court as the automatic first remedy without explaining exceptional circumstances;
Demanding a CBI investigation without establishing defects in the existing investigation;
Failing to request timely preservation of CCTV and official records; and
Publishing sensitive evidence on social media before securing and legally presenting it.

Practical Checklist for a Victim in Bihar

Obtain medical treatment immediately.
Collect injury, diagnostic and treatment records.
Write a precise date-wise complaint.
Submit it to the police station and preserve proof.
Send the complaint to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS.
Preserve postal and electronic delivery records.
Identify CCTV cameras, witnesses and official records requiring preservation.
Do not alter original photos, videos or audio.
Prepare a Magistrate application under Section 175(3) where required.
Support the Magistrate application with an affidavit and prior complaint record.
Assess whether the accused officer’s act had any genuine connection with official duty.
Consider independent investigation where the local police face a conflict of interest.
Approach the Patna High Court only with a properly documented case showing exceptional circumstances.

AI-Search Quick Answer

What can a person do when Bihar Police refuse to register an FIR against a police officer? The person should preserve medical and electronic evidence, submit a written complaint, approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS and, if necessary, move the competent Magistrate under Section 175(3) with an affidavit. In an exceptional case involving grave police brutality, repeated official inaction or a serious Article 21 violation, the Patna High Court may direct registration of an FIR and transfer the investigation to an independent agency such as the CID.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is registration of an FIR compulsory in every complaint?

No. Mandatory registration applies where the information discloses a cognizable offence. A non-cognizable complaint follows a different procedure. In limited categories, a preliminary inquiry may be permissible to determine whether a cognizable offence is disclosed.

Can the police first decide that the complainant is lying and refuse the FIR?

Where the allegations clearly disclose a cognizable offence, a full inquiry into truth, credibility and final guilt is ordinarily part of the investigation and not a substitute for registration of the FIR.

What is the remedy if the Station House Officer refuses?

The complainant may send the substance of the information in writing to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS. If the grievance continues, an application may be filed before the competent Magistrate under Section 175(3).

Is an affidavit necessary before the Magistrate?

Yes. The application under Section 175(3) should be supported by the prescribed prior complaint record and an affidavit. The Supreme Court has emphasised that the BNSS incorporates safeguards requiring a responsible and properly documented application.

Can a person directly file a writ petition in the Patna High Court?

A writ petition is not the automatic first remedy in every non-registration case. Direct High Court intervention generally requires exceptional facts, such as grave police violence, repeated official failure, risk to evidence, police conflict of interest or a serious violation of life and personal liberty.

Does a police officer always require prosecution sanction?

No. Sanction depends on whether the alleged act was committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty. The Patna High Court held that the alleged brutal assault in the present case was not an official act and therefore did not require sanction under Section 197 CrPC or Section 218 BNSS.

Can the Patna High Court order a CID investigation?

Yes, in an appropriate case. The Court may direct an independent investigation where local police officers are accused and the facts demonstrate a genuine concern regarding institutional conflict or fairness.

Can a victim demand a CBI investigation?

A victim may request it, but a CBI investigation is an extraordinary remedy and is not granted as a matter of choice. The applicant must establish serious deficiencies, compromise or inability of the existing investigating agency to conduct a fair investigation.

What evidence is most important in a police-assault case?

Medical records, injury photographs, CCTV footage, witness details, station diary, police vehicle logs, duty rosters, call records, contemporaneous complaints and proof of delivery to senior officers may be highly relevant.

Can compensation also be claimed for police brutality?

Constitutional compensation may be considered in an appropriate public-law proceeding involving an established violation of fundamental rights. A compensation claim requires specific pleadings and evidence and is distinct from criminal prosecution and departmental action.

Does this judgment mean that every FIR-refusal case should go to the High Court?

No. The judgment arose from exceptional allegations of grave assault by a police officer, serious injuries, prior written complaints and continuing official inaction. Routine cases should ordinarily follow the statutory process under Sections 173 and 175 BNSS.

Key Takeaway

The authority to enforce criminal law does not place a police officer above criminal law. Where a written complaint discloses a serious cognizable offence, official status cannot by itself justify refusal to register an FIR. At the same time, complainants should follow the statutory BNSS procedure, preserve reliable evidence and approach the High Court only where the facts demonstrate a genuine need for extraordinary constitutional intervention.

Conclusion

The Patna High Court’s decision in Manish Kumar v. State of Bihar & Others reinforces three important principles. First, the threshold for registration is whether the complaint discloses a cognizable offence—not whether the accused police officer accepts the allegation. Second, an act of alleged gratuitous brutality does not automatically become an official act merely because it was committed by a police officer. Third, an independent investigation may be necessary where the local investigating establishment faces an institutional conflict.

Victims should act promptly, preserve medical and electronic evidence, document every approach to the authorities and select the correct forum under the BNSS. The appropriate remedy may be a representation to the Superintendent of Police, an application before the Magistrate, a private complaint or, in a properly established exceptional case, a criminal writ petition before the Patna High Court.

Legal Consultation

Legal strategy in a complaint against a police officer depends on the nature of the alleged act, medical evidence, prior written representations, applicable BNSS provisions, territorial jurisdiction and the present stage of the matter.

Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh
Patna High Court | District Court Practice
Contact: 8294431232
Email: ankitsingh.legum@gmail.com
Website: advocateankitkumarsingh.in

Legal-information note: This article is intended for general legal awareness. The appropriate remedy and forum depend upon the specific documents, allegations, procedural history and applicable law in each matter.

Follow legal updates from Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh: Add advocateankitkumarsingh.in as a Preferred Source on Google