Prospective Accused Cannot Challenge Order Directing FIR Registration and Investigation Under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST Act

The respondent no. 2 (complainant) moved an application under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur, alleging that the appellant molested her under the pretext of showing her a shop.

The appellant contested this, asserting that the distance between their residences made the incident improbable and that the complaint was a retaliatory measure regarding a dispute over photocopying charges.

By an order dated 26/03/2026, the Special Judge directed the SHO, Tambour, to register an FIR and investigate the matter.

The appellant challenged this order through a statutory appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act.

1. Whether an order passed by a Special Judge under Section 173(4) of the BNSS directing the registration of an FIR and investigation is an "interlocutory order".

2. Whether a prospective accused has the locus standi to maintain a statutory appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act against an order directing the registration of an FIR.

Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act, which bars appeals against "interlocutory orders".

The court relied on the Full Bench decisions in Father Thomas v. State of UP and Jagannath Verma v. State of UP, which established that a direction to the police to register an FIR and investigate is an ancillary step in aid of investigation, purely interlocutory, and not amenable to revision or appeal by a prospective accused.

The court also considered Section 173(4) and 175(3) of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 156(3) CrPC) as interpreted in Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra, which codifies procedural safeguards but does not alter the interlocutory nature of such orders.

The court reasoned that although the BNSS introduced new procedural safeguards—such as requiring the Magistrate to consider police submissions and the complainant's affidavit before ordering an FIR—these changes merely codified existing judicial practices aimed at preventing misuse of the law.

Applying the Father Thomas precedent, the court found that since no cognizance had been taken and no process (summons) had been issued against the appellant, his substantial rights remained untouched at this stage.

The court noted that while an order rejecting a 173(4) application is a final order amenable to revision, an order granting it is purely interim/temporary.

Consequently, even under the new BNSS framework, the direction to investigate remains an interlocutory step.

Under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act, appeals against interlocutory orders are expressly barred.

The court further concluded that a prospective accused has no locus standi to challenge such a direction prior to the summoning/cognizance stage.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.