The High Court of Tripura has declined to direct the registration of an FIR on a complaint filed by Ramchandraghat MLA Ranjit Debbarma against a section of the electronic media. The court ruled that no prima facie cognizable offence emerged under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Justice T. Amarnath Goud delivered the judgment on February 23, 2026. He dismissed the writ petition that challenged the decision of West Agartala Police Station to close the complaint as “No Cognizable Offence.”
Read More: Tripura Seeks More Central Funds for Farm Schemes
Background of the Complaint
The case arose from a written complaint filed on October 26, 2025. Debbarma alleged that electronic media outlet Headlines Tripura National and its editor Pranab Sarkar broadcast news claiming that he possessed a fake Bangladeshi voter ID card and a fabricated birth certificate.
The MLA argued that the broadcast was deliberate and malicious. He claimed the reports aimed to damage his reputation and political career. Additionally, he alleged that forged Bangladeshi documents were circulated without proper verification.
Debbarma invoked provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the Information Technology Act. He contended that the alleged acts amounted to forgery, defamation, and offences under special statutes.
Police Enquiry and Decision
After receiving the complaint, the Officer-in-Charge of West Agartala Police Station conducted a preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) of the BNSS. Subsequently, through a reasoned order dated November 8, 2025, the officer declined to register an FIR.
The police concluded that the complaint did not disclose any cognizable offence requiring immediate registration of a case.
High Court’s Findings
The High Court examined police records, statutory provisions, and relevant Supreme Court precedents. After detailed consideration, the court upheld the police decision.
First, the court observed that defamation, as alleged by the petitioner, constitutes a non-cognizable offence. Therefore, the appropriate remedy lies in filing a private complaint before a magistrate rather than seeking police registration of an FIR.
Second, the court found no material to show that the media personnel prepared, forged, or used fake documents. Consequently, the essential ingredients required to invoke forgery provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were absent.
Third, the court ruled that the broadcasts did not target the petitioner on the basis of his tribal identity. Hence, the ingredients necessary to attract provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were not satisfied.
Finally, the court held that the complaint failed to establish a prima facie offence under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Clarification on BNSS Provisions
Importantly, the judgment elaborated on the legal framework of the BNSS, 2023. The court clarified that Section 173(3) allows police to conduct a preliminary enquiry in cases where alleged offences carry punishment between three and seven years.
Thus, the police acted within their statutory authority by conducting a preliminary enquiry before deciding whether to register an FIR.
Petition Dismissed
In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. It ruled that the police decision did not suffer from legal infirmity. The court emphasized that no prima facie cognizable offence emerged at this stage.
The judgment reinforces procedural safeguards under the BNSS, 2023, while also clarifying the distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable offences in defamation-related disputes.
Also Read: Fast-Track Court Likely in Zubeen Case