Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings

“A Magistrate’s order under Section 175(4) BNSS is a judicial act — Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to override or recall it”, In a significant reaffirmation of the separation between judicial functions and writ oversight, the Supreme Court of India ruled that a Single Judge of a High Court cannot compel a Magistrate to reverse or recall his own judicial order, especially when the proceedings under Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) are already underway.

Observing that the Single Judge had “plainly exceeded his jurisdiction,” the Court warned that Article 226 cannot be a tool to interfere in pending criminal applications, unless a specific challenge is made through permissible legal channels.

“The writ court could not convert itself into a court for conducting a magisterial inquiry... The direction effectively compelled the Magistrate to recall his own judicial order — a power unknown to criminal procedure,” the Court declared.

“Writ Jurisdiction Is Not a Shortcut for Litigants Seeking to Bypass Statutory Remedies”

The case arose from a sensitive complaint filed by a woman alleging sexual assault by senior police officers during the investigation of a property dispute. After her application under Section 210 read with Section 173(4) BNSS was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Ponnani, the Magistrate invoked Section 175(4) and called for a report from the superior police officer.

Rather than await the outcome of the proceedings already in motion before the Magistrate, the appellant simultaneously filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the Kerala High Court, seeking directions for FIR registration and a declaration that Section 175(4) did not apply.

The Single Judge not only entertained the writ petition but went on to direct the JMFC to pass an order within 10 days as per his own legal interpretation — essentially nullifying the Magistrate’s decision to seek a report.

“High Court Cannot Bypass Judicial Orders in Criminal Matters — Challenge Must Be Proper and Direct”

In strong words, the Supreme Court held that the Magistrate’s action under Section 175(4) was a judicial order, and thus, the High Court had no authority under Article 226 to override it, particularly when it was not even under challenge.

“The Single Judge directed the Magistrate to pass an order in accordance with the law that such Judge declared. This was plainly impermissible,” the Court stated.

Citing its earlier decision in Radhe Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015) 5 SCC 423, and the recent precedent in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1948, the Court reinforced the principle that judicial orders — whether in civil or criminal jurisdiction — cannot be challenged through writ petitions under Article 226.

The Bench, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan, underscored that the correct route would have been to challenge the JMFC’s order under Section 528 BNSS or under Article 227, and not to invite writ interference while the judicial process was ongoing.

“Interference With an Ongoing Criminal Process Without Challenging the Order — A Judicial Overreach”

The Court noted that the Single Judge's order not only misunderstood the scope of Section 175(4) but went further to undo a judicial act without legal basis. The Magistrate had, in accordance with the statute, sought a report from a superior officer, yet the High Court directed that this process be set aside without even examining its validity.

“Such a direction, issued despite the pendency of an application before the JMFC, amounts to compelling the Magistrate to recall his own judicial order — which is alien to the structure of criminal procedure,” the Court cautioned.

The judgment strongly reaffirmed that judicial independence of Magistrates cannot be diluted by ad hoc writ interventions. In fact, the Bench clarified that no declaratory relief — such as declaring that acts of sexual assault by police officers are not in discharge of official duty — could have been granted without a factual inquiry by the competent judicial forum.

“Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Pre-Empt Fact-Finding or Procedure Prescribed by Criminal Law”

The Court was unequivocal in its reasoning: “A writ court is not a substitute for a trial court. It cannot assume the role of a Magistrate and undertake fact-finding regarding whether an act was committed in discharge of official duty.”

Without challenging the JMFC’s order dated 11th September 2024, which was a judicial act of calling for a report under Section 175(4), the appellant had no basis to seek a declaration from the writ court. By accepting such a prayer, the Single Judge, according to the Supreme Court, acted in a manner “jurisdictionally flawed and constitutionally impermissible.”

A Message to the Judiciary: Respect Procedural Integrity of Criminal Trials

This judgment sends a clear message to High Courts: do not use Article 226 to interfere with pending judicial proceedings unless the circumstances are extraordinary, and only if the order being challenged is itself questioned through proper legal channels.

It also reinforces the principle that Magistrates exercising jurisdiction under Section 175 BNSS do so judicially, and their orders must be respected unless overturned through appeal, revision, or supervisory jurisdiction, not by collateral writ petitions.

The judgment ends by allowing the appellant to pursue her complaint before the JMFC in accordance with the BNSS, provided her application complies with procedural requirements, particularly the affidavit under Section 333.

Date of Decision: January 27, 2026