High Court upholds magistrate's power to treat a BNSS 175(3) application as a complaint; petition dismissed

A single-judge bench of Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla heard a challenge to an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, which had treated an application under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), 2023, as a complaint rather than directing a police investigation. The petition by Pradeep Kumar assailed the magistrate's decision in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1583 of 2024 (Pradeep Kumar v. Mohit Kumar & Ors.), arising from alleged grievous injuries suffered by one Sandeep in July 2024.

The High Court dismissed the application and upheld the magistrate's exercise of discretion in treating the 175(3) application as a complaint. The Court held that the magistrate had recorded reasons and applied the legal principles governing the exercise of powers analogous to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as summarised in earlier decisions, and that the expanded provisions of Section 175(3) B.N.S.S. conferred a discretion to "make such inquiry as he thinks necessary" before ordering investigation. The Court noted that the magistrate had "given his reasons why a police investigation is not required" and that those reasons were "in consonance with Paragraph Nos.40.06 and 40.07" of the precedent Lala Ram. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "(40.06). In either case, i.e. issuing direction for investigation by the police officer under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or taking cognizance and registering it as a complaint case, the Magistrate has to apply judicial mind. There cannot be mechanical exercise of jurisdiction or exercise in a routine manner. Mere statement in the order that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant will not be sufficient. What weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation or to take cognizance should be reflected in the order, although a detailed expression of his view is neither required nor warranted."

Background
The dispute arose from allegations that on a night in July 2024 the injured, Sandeep, was seized by two accused, had his right leg tied with barbed wire to a motorcycle and was dragged, resulting in amputation of the leg. The applicant alleged that police at Police Station Sheoli failed to act, and after initial medical treatment the injured was shifted to S.G.P.G.I., Lucknow. When no action followed, the applicant filed an application under Section 175(3) B.N.S.S. seeking a direction for police investigation. The Chief Judicial Magistrate treated the application as a complaint and issued notices under Section 223 B.N.S.S.; the applicant contended that the matter required police investigation for spot inspection, recovery of the weapon and motorcycle, and custodial interrogation.

Opposing counsel for the respondents relied on a line of authority of this Court — notably Sukhwasi and Lala Ram — to contend that a magistrate could in his discretion treat an application under the statutory provision as a complaint and that the magistrate had given "specific reasons for treating the application as a complaint". The State supported the magistrate's order and urged that the High Court should not substitute its satisfaction for that of the magistrate.

The High Court examined the text of Sections 175(3) and 175(4) B.N.S.S., compared them with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and observed that the B.N.S.S. provisions had expanded the magistrate's discretion and required an affidavit in support. The Court followed precedents including Priyanka Srivastava and Lala Ram, and reiterated that magistrates must apply judicial mind and record reasons when exercising discretion, but were not obliged to order police investigation in every case. The Court accepted the magistrate's findings that the application did not disclose facts necessitating police-only investigation, including preservation of material evidence, and noted the substantial passage of time since the alleged incident, which militated against recovery of physical evidence at the scene. Concluding there was "no legal or factual infirmity or jurisdictional error or any perversity" in the magistrate's order, the High Court dismissed the petition and ordered no costs.

Case Details:
Case No.: Application U/S 528 B.N.S.S. No. 18266 of 2025
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Mohd. Monis (Advocates)
For the Respondent(s): G.A.; Hari Nath Chaubey (Advocate); Shashi Dhar Pandey (Additional Government Advocate)