Recently, the Supreme Court held that Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'), acts as a safeguard against the mechanical registration of FIRs on vague and speculative allegations. The Court emphasised that criminal law cannot be set in motion on uncertain and unverified claims, particularly where the statute itself mandates a preliminary scrutiny.
Brief facts:
The case stemmed from a complaint filed against Ashish Dave, then Channel Head of Zee Rajasthan and Zee 24 Ghanta, owned by Zee Media Corporation Ltd. The complaint alleged misuse of position, unauthorised financial dealings, extortion through threats of adverse media coverage, and coercive broadcasting practices. Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered invoking offences such as extortion, cheating, and criminal intimidation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Challenging the FIR under Section 528 of the BNSS, the appellant approached the Rajasthan High Court, which declined interference at the preliminary stage. The matter then reached the Apex Court, raising a crucial question on the scope of Section 173(3) of the BNSS, particularly in cases where allegations fall within the 3–7 years punishment bracket, warranting a preliminary enquiry prior to FIR registration.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant contended that the complaint was a product of malice following his fallout with the management and was devoid of material particulars. The Counsel argued that the allegations were vague, lacking specifics such as identifiable victims, dates, or concrete instances of wrongdoing. The Appellant further submitted that the police acted mechanically in registering the FIR without conducting the mandatory preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) of the BNSS, thereby violating statutory safeguards and enabling abuse of criminal process.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The State and the complainant defended the registration of the FIR, asserting that the allegations disclosed cognizable offences justifying immediate action. The Counsel contended that the seriousness of the accusations warranted investigation and that the High Court had rightly refused to quash the FIR at an early stage, leaving the matter to be tested during investigation.
Observation of the Court:
The Court noted that the allegations were “absolutely bereft of particulars”, failing to identify specific victims, incidents, or supporting material. The Court held that such vague assertions could not form the basis of criminal prosecution, particularly under a statutory framework that introduces safeguards against arbitrary FIR registration.
The Court observed, while interpreting Section 173(3) of the BNSS, that “The legislative intent… is to provide a safeguard against mechanical registration of FIRs in cases where the allegations… may in substance be vague, speculative or inherently doubtful.”
The Bench further criticised the police for acting with “unusual expediency” in registering the FIR without even basic verification, observing that “Had it been an ordinary citizen… the FIR would never have been registered… the alacrity… speaks volumes about the influence which the complainant wields.”
The Court clarified that, unlike Section 154 of the CrPC, Section 173(3) of the BNSS allows, and in appropriate cases, mandates a preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists. The failure to adopt this safeguard, especially when all alleged offences fell within the prescribed punishment bracket, rendered the FIR legally unsustainable.
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Apex Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order and quashed the FIR along with all consequential proceedings against the appellant. The Court held that registration of FIRs without preliminary enquiry in cases involving vague and unsubstantiated allegations, despite the applicability of Section 173(3) of the BNSS, amounts to an abuse of process, thereby reinforcing the principle that criminal law cannot be invoked mechanically in the absence of a prima facie factual foundation.
Case Title: Ashish Dave vs. The State Of Rajasthan And Another
Case No.: SLP(Crl.) No(s). 19369 of 2025)
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath, Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Meht
Advocate for the Petitioner: Sr. Adv. Siddharth Aggarwal, Adv. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Ishan Nagar, Adv. Vinayak Aren, Adv. Sidhant Saraswat, Adv. Mugdha, AOR Deshmukh Adith Satish,
Advocate for the Respondent: Sr. Adv. Sanjay Jain, A.S.G. S.D Sanjay, A.A.G. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Adv. Sonali Gaur, AOR. Nidhi Jaswal, Adv. Satyam Chaturvedi, Adv. Vikas Gogne, AOR. Rahul Tyagi, Adv. Keshav Tomar,
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
