Mandatory Recourse to Section 173(4) BNSS Prevails Over Writ Jurisdiction if Preliminary Enquiry Finds No Cognizable Offence.

The petitioner, an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly in Tripura, filed a written complaint on 26.10.2025 against Sri Pranab Sarkar and associates.

He alleged that the accused broadcasted fabricated Bangladeshi Voter ID cards and Birth Certificates on "Headlines Tripura National" to malign his political career.

The Officer-in-Charge (Respondent No. 4) conducted a preliminary enquiry under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and issued a reasoned letter on 08.11.2025 refusing to register an FIR.

The police concluded that the allegations primarily pertained to non-cognizable defamation and lacked ingredients for forgery or offenses under the SC/ST (PoA) Act and the IT Act.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to compel FIR registration and investigation.

Whether the police officer is mandated to register an FIR under Section 173 of the BNSS when the information disclosed does not ex facie reveal a cognizable offence.

Whether the petitioner can bypass the alternative remedies provided under Section 173(4) and Section 175 of the BNSS to seek a Writ of Mandamus from the High Court.

Whether the alleged broadcast of fabricated documents attracts the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, or the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The court primarily applied Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which replaced Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. and introduced Section 173(3) empowering police to conduct preliminary enquiries for offenses punishable by 3 to 7 years to ascertain a prima facie case.

It relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation in *Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat* (2026), which held that Section 173(3) of the BNSS is an exception to the mandatory registration of FIRs to prevent frivolous cases.

Further, the court applied the "two-tier protection" principle and alternative remedy exhaustion as discussed in *XXX v. State of Kerala & Ors.* (2026) regarding Section 175.

The court also reaffirmed the limited scope of preliminary enquiry defined in *Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP* (2014) as applied within the new BNSS framework.

The court found that since the complaint was filed after 01.07.2024, the BNSS, 2023, governs the procedure.

Under Section 173(3) of the BNSS, the Respondent No. 4 was legally permitted to conduct a preliminary enquiry because the alleged offenses carried punishments between 3 and 7 years.

The court analyzed the police's "Findings" and agreed that the allegation of "fake documents" without proof of the media house actually creating them (forgery) did not satisfy Sections 338/340 of the BNS at the threshold.

Regarding the SC/ST Act, the court noted a lack of prima facie evidence that the broadcast was motivated by the petitioner's caste status.

For the IT Act, the court observed that the allegations did not meet the technical requirements for identity theft or obscenity under Sections 66 or 67.

Crucially, the court held that under the new BNSS scheme, the petitioner had failed to exhaust the statutory remedies of approaching the Superintendent of Police (u/s 173(4)) or the Magistrate (u/s 175(3)), making the writ petition premature.

The court held that a Writ of Mandamus is not maintainable when the petitioner has bypassed the mandatory hierarchical remedies provided under Sections 173(4) and 175 of the BNSS.

However, the court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the concerned Magistrate under the appropriate provisions of the BNSS, 2023.