Magistrates cannot mechanically order FIR against public servants: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has fortified the statutory immunity of public servants by ruling that Magistrates cannot bypass the rigorous safeguards of the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to order criminal investigations into official police actions. In a significant check on judicial discretion, the Bench held that the failure to conduct a preliminary inquiry and consider superior officers' reports before directing an FIR against police personnel constitutes a fatal jurisdictional error.

Justice Santosh Rai presided over the appeal challenging an order that had directed the registration of an FIR against a Sub-Inspector. The Bench emphasized that the legislative shift from the old Code of Criminal Procedure to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 introduces substantive procedural hurdles designed to prevent the harassment of officials acting in good faith.

Key Takeaways

Mandatory Preliminary Inquiry

Magistrates must now explicitly determine if an inquiry is necessary under Section 175(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before ordering any investigation, moving away from the mechanical approach under the old law.

Public Servant Safeguards

Section 175(4) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 acts as a non-negotiable shield, requiring the Court to obtain a report from a superior officer and consider the accused official's version before initiating criminal process.

Curbing Vengeful Litigation

Courts are legally obligated to scrutinize whether a complaint is a retaliatory tactic by an accused person against an investigating officer, ensuring the criminal justice system is not weaponized.

Enhanced Scrutiny Under BNSS Framework

The Allahabad High Court noted that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 marks a deliberate departure from the Code of Criminal Procedure. While Section 156(3) of the old code allowed for relatively simple directions, Section 175(3) of the new Sanhita requires the Magistrate to consider an application supported by an affidavit and the submissions of the police officer.

The Bench observed that “The additional requirements introduced by Section 175(3) BNSS are therefore substantive procedural safeguards and cannot be treated as an empty formality... the statutory scheme requires the Court to consider not merely the version of the applicant but also the explanation or material placed by the police concerning the alleged refusal to register the case and the circumstances surrounding such refusal.”

Ratio

An order directing investigation against a public servant under Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 must be a reasoned one, demonstrating compliance with the three-fold requirement: consideration of an affidavit-backed application, conduct of a necessary inquiry, and an objective assessment of the police submission and superior officer's report. Failure to adhere to these safeguards, especially when the alleged act has a nexus with official duty, renders the judicial order unsustainable.

Background

The dispute originated when a woman filed an application under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, alleging that Sub-Inspector Sandhya Jaisawal and other personnel forcibly entered her house, used casteist slurs, and illegally detained her son. The Special Judge at Varanasi allowed the application, directing an immediate FIR registration.

However, the appellant argued that the complainant’s son was an accused in a case under Sections 115(2), 69, and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, where she was the Investigating Officer. She contended the complaint was malicious. The High Court relied on precedents like State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., Anil Kumar & Ors. Vs. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr. ( "(2013) 10 SCC 705": 2013 CaseBase(SC) 485), and Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. ( "(2015) 6 SCC 287": 2015 CaseBase(SC) 248) to reiterate that judicial mind must be applied to prevent abuse of process. The Allahabad High Court also referred to Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ( "(2026) 2 SCC 622": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 280) and XXX Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. ( "(2026) 6 SCC 770": 2026 CaseBase(SC) 50) to explain the symbiotic relationship between sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 175 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Consequently, the Allahabad High Court set aside the order for being in violation of the mandatory procedures of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and SC/ST Act.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9326 of 2026
Case Title: Sandhya Jaisawal v. State of U.P. and Another
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ajay Tripathi, Surya Prakash Pandey, Advocates
For the Respondent(s): Jai Prakash Singh, G.A., Raju Chaudhary, Rajesh Kumar Shukla, AGA

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 1203