Magistrate Not Bound to Direct FIR if Evidence Is Within Complainant's Access: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court recently reiterated that a Magistrate is not mandatorily required to order the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 simply because a cognizable offence is disclosed, particularly when the complainant possesses the necessary evidence to proceed with a complaint case.

Justice Brij Raj Singh, while presiding over the matter, dismissed an application seeking to set aside a lower court order that treated a plea for FIR registration as a complaint case. The Court emphasized that the power to direct an investigation is discretionary and must be exercised based on the specific facts of each case.

The Discretionary Power of Magistrates

The Court observed that while the registration of an FIR is mandatory for the police under Section 154 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) as per Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P. ( "(2014) 2 SCC 1": 2013 CaseBase(SC) 771), this obligation does not translate into a mandatory command for Magistrates under Section 156(3) of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 175(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The Magistrate while exercising his discretion, has to apply his mind judiciously considering the nature of the complaint and the evidence available with the complainant at the time of filing the complaint. Once an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is entertained by the Magistrate, he has two options; one is to pass an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of the FIR and, the second is to direct examination of the complainant on oath and the witness present and proceed further in the manner provided by Section 202 Cr.P.C."

Guidelines for Invoking Police Investigation

Referring to Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, the High Court noted that investigation by the state machinery should be directed only when the assistance of an investigating agency is necessary to prevent the cause of justice from suffering. The Court highlighted that for simple allegations where the court can straightaway conduct a trial, the Magistrate should record evidence rather than "passing the buck" to the police.

Background:

The applicant, a 22-year-old married woman, alleged that on December 25, 2025, she was ambushed and molested by four individuals in a sugarcane field. Despite her efforts to lodge an FIR and seek medical examination, the local police failed to act. She subsequently moved the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Gonda, under Section 175(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The CJM, Gonda, declined to order an FIR and instead treated the application as a complaint case, noting that the applicant had personal knowledge of the facts and witnesses. The applicant challenged this before the High Court, citing Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P. ( "(2014) 2 SCC 1": 2013 CaseBase(SC) 771) and XYZ Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others ( "(2023) 9 SCC 705": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 978), arguing that in cases of sexual offences, registration of an FIR is imperative to collect evidence.

The State, relying on Waseem Haider Vs. State of U.P. and others and Priti Agarwalla and others Vs. The State of GNCT of Delhi and others ( "2024 SCC OnLine SC 973": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 93), argued that the Magistrate is fully competent to use judicial discretion. The High Court, after analyzing a series of precedents including Mukesh Kharwar Vs. State of U.P. and others, Anmol Singh V. State of U.P. and others, Sukhwasi Vs. State of U.P., Kailash Vijay Vargiya Vs. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri and others, X Vs. State of U.P. and others, Shaligram Vs. State of U.P. and others, and Kailash Nath Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. and others, concluded that since the applicant was in possession of the material facts and no complex investigation like CCTV retrieval was required, the CJM's decision was legally sound.

Case Details:
Case No.: APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1531 of 2026
Case Title: Roli Versus State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. and 4 others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Dwijendra Mishra, Rajneesh Mishra, Vishva Deep Pandey, Advocates
For the Respondent(s): G.A. (Anurag Varma, learned AGA-1)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 192