Summary of the Case

The High Court of Tripura has held that when a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, registration of an FIR under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is mandatory—even when the allegations are against police personnel. The Division Bench delivered the ruling in Billal Miah v. State of Tripura & Ors., W.P.(CRL) No. 13 of 2026, on 18 August 2026. The Bench comprised Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Billal Miah, alleged that on 21 February 2026, he and his two brothers were travelling towards Agartala to sell gold ornaments and gold bars to arrange funds for his brother’s medical treatment. Near Bishalgarh College, they were stopped by Sub-Inspector Banijoy Reang and two constables. According to the petitioner, they were first taken to a tea garden and subsequently to Bishalgarh Police Station. The gold was allegedly found in their vehicle during the search. The petitioner claimed that they were detained at the police station for the entire day. When they were permitted to leave in the evening, they allegedly found the rear door of their vehicle open and the gold ornaments missing. He further alleged receiving threatening calls from police personnel. On 26 February 2026, he approached Sonamura Police Station to lodge an FIR, but alleged that the FIR was not accepted. He subsequently approached the Superintendent of Police on 28 February 2026, but claimed that no FIR was registered.

Arguments of the Parties

For the petitioner, it was argued that the complaint disclosed cognizable offences involving alleged theft and misappropriation of the gold. Counsel also pointed to alleged contradictions in the police responses and relied upon a preliminary inquiry report which, according to the petitioner, showed that the vehicle had been moved and that the concerned Sub-Inspector had entered it twice.

For the police officials, it was argued that the allegations were baseless, CCTV footage did not show removal of any articles, and the petitioner had not produced documents establishing ownership of the gold. The police maintained that the vehicle had been intercepted on the basis of information regarding suspected illegal items and was taken to the police station for checking.

The Public Prosecutor submitted that disciplinary action had already been initiated regarding procedural irregularities and that the concerned Sub-Inspector had been placed under suspension. The State also contended that CCTV footage did not substantiate the allegation of theft.

Court’s Judgment and Order

The High Court found it concerning that the vehicle had been taken to an isolated tea garden instead of the nearby police station, which was approximately 2.5 kilometres away. The Court held that where a citizen’s complaint specifically discloses cognizable offences involving alleged misappropriation and high-handedness by police personnel, Section 173 BNSS mandates registration of an FIR and an impartial investigation. The Court clarified that questions regarding the petitioner’s ownership of the gold, validity of receipts, and whether the alleged misappropriation actually occurred could only be determined through a thorough, independent and comprehensive investigation.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. The authorities were directed to register the petitioner’s written complaint and appoint a Senior Officer of the Crime Branch to investigate the matter. The entire record was directed to be transferred to the Crime Branch officer for an independent, fair and expeditious investigation in accordance with law.

Case: Billal Miah v. State of Tripura & Ors.
W.P.(CRL) No. 13 of 2026 | Judgment dated 18 August 2026.

Download the order: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n5ps7Bo-erqV8kSjsa19KGePcvWNqVvg/view?usp=sharing