Police Refusal to Record Case in Bangladesh: Section 154, Complaint Petitions and Mandamus in 2026

Police refusal to record case information: the law in 2026

Police refusal to record case information is one of the most common complaints in Bangladesh's criminal justice system, and one of the most consequential. A victim who cannot get a first information report registered loses time, evidence and often the chance of an effective investigation. The law is clear that the officer in charge of a police station must record information disclosing a cognizable offence, and the High Court Division has held that he cannot refuse because the occurrence happened in another station's area. The harder question is what to do when the duty is ignored.

This guide sets out the duty under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the difference between cognizable and non-cognizable cases, the complaint petition before a Magistrate as the main alternative, the guidelines in Naripokkho v Bangladesh, when a writ of mandamus is the right tool, and the practical steps that get a case recorded.

Summary: Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure obliges the officer in charge to record every information disclosing a cognizable offence. The High Court Division has held this duty mandatory, irrespective of the place of occurrence. When the police refuse, the usual remedy is a complaint petition to a Magistrate, who can examine the complainant and direct investigation. A writ under Article 102 is reserved for cases where that route is not equally efficacious, or where systemic failures or fundamental rights are at stake.

Key point: In Naripokkho v Bangladesh (Writ Petition No 5541 of 2015, judgment 18 February 2016), the High Court Division held that refusing to record an FIR for a cognizable offence on the plea that it occurred in another station's jurisdiction violates section 154, and issued eighteen binding guidelines, including immediate recording irrespective of the place of occurrence.

At a glance

Swipe or scroll →

Table of Contents

Why police refusal to record case information matters

The first information report sets the criminal law in motion. As the High Court Division put it in Naripokkho, the FIR's principal object from the informant's point of view is to set the machinery of criminal law into motion, and from the investigating agency's point of view to obtain information about the occurrence and take steps to trace the accused.[3] A police refusal to record case information therefore does more than inconvenience the victim. It delays the collection of evidence, medical examination and arrest, and it can shape whether an offence is ever prosecuted.

Refusals take several forms: a flat refusal, an instruction to come back later, an insistence that the matter is civil, a demand that the victim go to another station, or an offer to record only a general diary entry. Each is analysed against the same statutory duty. For the difference between a general diary and an FIR, and when each is appropriate, see our guide on GD vs FIR in Bangladesh.

The duty under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Section 154 provides that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction and read over to the informant, and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing, shall be signed by the informant and its substance entered in a book kept in the form the Government prescribes.[2]

Cognizable and non-cognizable offences

The Code defines a cognizable offence as one for which a police officer may, under the second schedule or any other law, arrest without warrant.[2] For non-cognizable offences section 155(1) is different: the officer in charge must enter the substance of the information in the book and refer the informant to the Magistrate, and section 155(2) prevents police from investigating such a case without a Magistrate's order.[2] Before alleging an unlawful refusal, check that the facts disclose a cognizable offence. Many disputes about refusal are really disputes about classification.

The duty is mandatory

In Naripokkho the court held that the language of section 154 is clear and unambiguous: if information disclosing a cognizable offence is placed before the officer in charge, he has no option but to enter its substance in the prescribed form and register a case. The only condition is that there must be information and it must disclose a cognizable offence.[3] The court relied on regulation 244(a) of the Police Regulations of Bengal, which requires a first information to be recorded for every cognizable complaint, whether prima facie false or true and whether serious or petty.[3]

Place of occurrence is no excuse

The court contrasted section 154 with section 155, which contains a jurisdictional element for non-cognizable cases. Because the legislature deliberately left place of occurrence out of section 154, the officer in charge cannot refuse to register information on the plea that the occurrence did not take place within his jurisdiction.[3] In that case a survivor of gang rape was turned away at three Dhaka police stations before her information was finally recorded at a fourth, hours later; the court held the refusals violated section 154.[3]

Recording is not the same as investigating

Section 157 allows an officer in charge who sees no sufficient ground for investigation not to investigate, but he must state his reasons in his report to the Magistrate and notify the informant that he will not investigate.[2] That power arises after recording. It does not permit an officer to refuse to record the information in the first place, and the requirement to notify the informant gives the victim a written basis for the next step.

The Naripokkho guidelines

Naripokkho v Bangladesh was a public interest writ brought by five organisations, including Naripokkho, Bangladesh Mahila Parishad, Ain o Salish Kendra and BLAST, after a 21-year-old woman from the Garo community was allegedly gang-raped in a moving microbus in Dhaka on 21 May 2015 and police stations "dillydallied" in taking her complaint.[3] [4]

On issuing the rule on 25 May 2015, a bench of Justice Farah Mahbub and Justice Kazi Mohammad Ezarul Haque Akondo directed the government to issue a circular requiring all police stations to record any rape complaint and to serve victims without discrimination, with a compliance report from the home secretary, the Inspector General of Police and the Dhaka Metropolitan Police commissioner within a month.[4] The Inspector General issued Circular No 2 of 2015 on 10 June 2015.[3]

The court observed that the circular, as an administrative order, had no force of law. In its judgment of 18 February 2016 it therefore issued eighteen guidelines under Article 102, binding under Article 111 until Parliament legislates.[3] Those most relevant to a police refusal to record case information are:

• Every information relating to a cognizable offence, including rape and sexual assault, shall immediately be reduced to writing by the officer in charge irrespective of the place of occurrence, without discrimination and without delay.
• A designated website should enable informants to register complaints online.
• The statute should contain a specific provision dealing with refusal or failure, without sufficient cause, to register such cases.
• Every police station must have a female police officer available round the clock, and the duty officer must inform the Victim Support Centre immediately.
• After recording, the investigating officer must escort the victim for medical examination without delay, and DNA samples should reach the laboratory within 48 hours.

The court also observed that, because rape is a cognizable offence, there should be a penal provision for an officer who refuses to record such information.[3]

The complaint petition: the main alternative remedy

When a police refusal to record case information happens, the Code itself provides a route that does not depend on the police at all. A "complaint" is an allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under the Code, that some person has committed an offence.[2]

How the complaint route works

• Under section 190(1)(a), a competent Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence on receiving a complaint of facts constituting it.[2]
• Under section 200, the Magistrate examines the complainant and any witnesses present on oath, and the substance is reduced to writing.[2]
• Under section 202, the Magistrate may postpone process and inquire himself, or direct an inquiry or investigation by a subordinate Magistrate, a police officer or another person.[2]
• Under section 156(3), a Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order the police to investigate.[2]
• Under section 203, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, but must briefly record reasons.[2]

The Magistrate's supervisory role is real. In Bangladesh v BLAST the Appellate Division observed that a Magistrate is not bound to accept a police report and may direct further inquiry or investigation.[5] In Dhaka, complaints are filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's courts; our guide to the CMM Court Dhaka explains jurisdiction, and our guide on how to file a criminal case in Bangladesh covers drafting and filing.

Why the complaint route usually comes first

Article 102(2) allows the High Court Division to issue mandamus only "if satisfied that no other equally efficacious remedy is provided by law".[1] Because the Code gives a victim direct access to a Magistrate who can order investigation, an individual who files a writ for a single refusal will normally be asked why that route was not used. Our sibling guide on the alternative remedy bar in writ explains how the court applies that test.

When a writ is the right remedy

Article 102(2)(a)(i) allows the High Court Division to direct a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Republic to do that which he is required by law to do. That is the writ of mandamus.[1] Section 154 creates exactly that kind of duty. The question is when the High Court Division should enforce it directly rather than leaving the victim to the Magistrate.

Situations where a writ is justified

• Fundamental rights: Article 102(1) lets any person aggrieved seek directions to enforce fundamental rights, and the alternative-remedy qualification in Article 102(2) does not apply to it in the same terms.[1] Naripokkho linked the duty to Articles 27, 28, 31 and 32.[3]
• Systemic refusal: where several stations refuse, or a pattern affects a class of victims, a public interest writ can produce guidelines that bind all police stations.
• Urgency: where delay will destroy evidence, such as medical or forensic evidence in sexual offences, the court can direct immediate action.
• Accountability: the court may act on its own motion, join the local officer in charge as a respondent and call for reports on the steps taken, as it did in its April 2015 suo motu rule on the Pahela Baishakh sexual assaults at Dhaka University, where witnesses said police nearby did nothing.[6]

What the court can order

The High Court Division can issue a rule nisi with interim directions to record the information, refer the victim for medical examination, report on departmental proceedings, or dispose of a pending police complaint within a fixed time. In September 2026, in a case about obstruction at the airport, it directed the police officer concerned to dispose of the petitioners' complaints within seven days and submit a compliance report.[7] Our sibling guide on the writ of mandamus in Bangladesh explains the demand-and-refusal requirement and the limits of the remedy.

Where a writ will not help

A writ will not decide whether an offence was committed or direct the police to charge a particular person. If the facts disclose only a non-cognizable offence or a civil dispute, the duty under section 154 does not arise and the petition will fail. A police refusal to record case information about a contract dispute dressed up as cheating is a common example.

Recent practice, 2024 to 2026

Magistrates directing police to record cases

The complaint route remains the workhorse when a station will not act. On 13 August 2024 Magistrate Rajesh Chowdhury of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's court in Dhaka recorded a complainant's statement over the killing of a shopkeeper in Mohammadpur during the quota reform protests of July 2024 and, the same afternoon, directed Mohammadpur police station to record the allegations as a case.[9] Whatever the merits of a particular complaint, the sequence shows how quickly a Magistrate can convert a complaint into a recorded case, which is why the High Court Division expects that route to be tried first.

Police leadership on mandatory recording

Senior police officers have also restated the duty publicly. At a meeting at Dhaka Metropolitan Police headquarters on 25 November 2024, the DMP commissioner told complainants that where a matter is fit to be recorded as a case, officers in charge must record it, and warned that an officer in charge who refused would be suspended.[10] A public statement of that kind is not law, but it is worth quoting in a written complaint to the commissioner or superintendent when a station refuses.

The 2025 and 2026 amendments to the Code

The interim government's 2025 amendments to the Code, approved by the Advisory Council on 24 July 2025, focused on arrest and custody rather than recording. Police must identify themselves and complete a memorandum of arrest, arrests must be entered in the station's general diary whichever agency makes them, arrest without warrant under section 54 is narrowed, remand is capped at 15 days per case, and proven fabricated cases attract mandatory punishment with a maximum fine of Tk 1 lakh.[11]

On 7 April 2026 Parliament passed a Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill 2026 among fourteen bills designed to turn interim-government ordinances into law, and the Act was gazetted on 10 April 2026.[12] [8] None of these reports describes any change to section 154 itself.

Arrest, detention and the registration of a case

Registration matters in the opposite direction too. In Bangladesh v BLAST, decided on 24 May 2016, the Appellate Division issued guidelines for law enforcement agencies, including that registration of a case against an arrested person is sine qua non for seeking detention in police or judicial custody under section 167(2), and that the relatives of an arrested person must be informed within twelve hours.[5] Recording an FIR is therefore not only a victim's right but also a safeguard for accused persons, because it fixes the allegation in writing at the outset. For what follows once a case is recorded, see our guide to the criminal case process in Bangladesh.

What to do after a police refusal to record case information

A police refusal to record case information is best met with a paper trail, not an argument at the counter. The sequence below reflects how we advise victims and families.

Swipe or scroll →

Drafting the written information

A typed, signed information is harder to ignore than an oral account. State who you are, what happened, when and where, who did it or how they can be identified, who saw it, and what injury or loss resulted. Attach copies of medical slips, photographs and documents, and keep the original. If the station will not accept it, note the time, the officer's name and what was said, and send the same document to the superintendent of police or police commissioner the same day. The identical document can then be annexed to a complaint petition or a writ, showing exactly what the station refused.

Mistakes to avoid

• Accepting a GD instead of an FIR for a cognizable offence without a written explanation from the station.
• Exaggerating the allegation to make a civil dispute look cognizable; it undermines credibility and may expose the informant to liability.
• Waiting for weeks before going to the Magistrate; delay in lodging information is routinely used against the prosecution at trial.
• Going straight to the High Court Division for an individual refusal without trying the complaint route or explaining why it is inadequate.
• Losing medical evidence in sexual or physical assault cases while the dispute about recording continues.

Comparing remedies for a police refusal to record case information

The table below compares the options after a police refusal to record case information. On a phone, scroll it sideways.

In most individual cases the complaint petition is the fastest effective route, with a writ held in reserve for urgent, systemic or rights-based cases. Our constitutional and writ litigation practice handles mandamus petitions against police inaction, and our writ petition in Bangladesh guide explains the procedure.

What to watch in 2026

Parliament enacted a Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 2026, gazetted on 10 April 2026, to carry forward the interim government's amendments.[8] [12] Practitioners should check the gazetted text for anything that touches recording, online complaints or the consequences of a police refusal to record case information, and should watch how the new penalty for fabricated cases is used against informants.[11] The Naripokkho court called for exactly those changes nearly a decade ago, including an online registration website and a statutory provision on refusal.[3] Until Parliament acts on them, the guidelines remain binding.

If the police have refused to record your case, or you advise a station on its obligations, contact TRW for an immediate review of the facts and the fastest route to registration.

Frequently asked questions

Is the police obliged to record my FIR?

Yes, if your information discloses a cognizable offence. Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is mandatory, and the High Court Division has held the officer in charge has no option but to register it.[2] [3]

Can police refuse because the crime happened in another area?

No. In Naripokkho v Bangladesh the court held that an officer in charge cannot refuse to register information about a cognizable offence on the ground that it occurred outside his station's jurisdiction.[3]

What if the offence is non-cognizable?

The officer must enter the substance of the information and refer you to the Magistrate. Police cannot investigate a non-cognizable case without a Magistrate's order.[2]

What is the alternative if police will not record my case?

File a complaint petition before a competent Magistrate, who can examine you on oath, inquire into the complaint or direct the police to investigate.[2]

Can I go directly to the High Court Division?

You can, but for an individual refusal the court will ask why the complaint route was not equally efficacious. Writs are strongest in urgent, systemic or fundamental rights cases.[1]

Are the Naripokkho guidelines binding?

Yes. The court issued them under Article 102 and stated they bind all concerned under Article 111 until Parliament legislates.[3]

Can an officer record my case but refuse to investigate it?

Under section 157 an officer may decline to investigate where there is no sufficient ground, but must give reasons in his report to the Magistrate and notify you.[2]

Does the Magistrate have to accept the police report?

No. The Appellate Division in Bangladesh v BLAST observed that a Magistrate is not bound to accept a police report and may direct further inquiry or investigation.[5]

Is a general diary the same as an FIR?

No. Information disclosing a cognizable offence must be recorded under section 154 and entered as a case; a general diary entry is not a substitute for that duty.[2] [3]

What should I keep as evidence of a police refusal to record case information?

A copy of your written information with the station's receipt or a note of refusal, the names of officers, times and dates, any medical documents, and copies of letters to the superintendent or commissioner.