Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court

"Magistrate is not expected to mechanically direct investigation by the police without first examining whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, investigation by the State machinery is actually required or not," Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling dated May 19, 2026, held that a Magistrate is not legally bound to order the registration of an FIR in every instance where an application under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is filed.

A Single Bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh observed that if the complainant is in possession of the complete details of the case and the material evidence, the Magistrate may exercise judicial discretion to treat the matter as a complaint case instead of directing a police investigation.

The applicant, a 22-year-old married woman, alleged that she was molested and subjected to an attempted rape by four individuals on December 25, 2025, while she was working in her sugarcane field. After the police failed to lodge an FIR despite repeated requests and applications to senior officials, she moved the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Gonda, under Section 175(3) of the BNSS. The CJM, vide order dated March 20, 2026, treated her application as a complaint case rather than directing the police to register an FIR, leading to the present challenge before the High Court.

The primary question before the court was whether the Magistrate is mandatorily required to order the registration of an FIR under Section 175(3) of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 156(3) CrPC) whenever a cognizable offense is disclosed. The court was also called upon to determine the extent of a Magistrate's discretion in treating such applications as complaint cases, particularly in sensitive matters involving sexual offenses.

Magistrate’s Discretion Under Section 175(3) BNSS

The court began by clarifying the scope of Section 175(3) of the BNSS, which corresponds to Section 156(3) of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). It noted that the Magistrate has two primary options when presented with such an application: either to pass an order for investigation by the police or to take cognizance and proceed under the complaint procedure provided in the Sanhita. The bench emphasized that the Magistrate must apply a "judicious mind" rather than acting as a mere post office for the complainant.

Court Distinguishes Mandatory FIR Duty Of Police and Magistrate

Addressing the applicant’s reliance on the landmark Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P. judgment, the High Court noted that while the Supreme Court made the registration of an FIR mandatory for the police under Section 154 CrPC (now Section 173 BNSS) if a cognizable offense is disclosed, that mandate does not strip the Magistrate of their judicial discretion. The bench observed that Lalita Kumari does not lay down a dictum that the Magistrate is bound to order an FIR in every case where a cognizable offense is alleged.

"The judgment of Lalita Kumari (supra) does not lay down any dictum in respect of remedies available to the informant... to be invoked in case of failure on the part of the police to perform its statutory duty."

Criteria For Ordering Police Investigation

The court elaborated on the circumstances that necessitate a police probe. It held that a Magistrate should ideally direct the police to investigate only when the assistance of an investigating agency is essential—for instance, when evidence such as CCTV footage needs to be retrieved, the accused are unknown, or the recovery of stolen property is required. If the allegations are simple and the complainant is in a position to produce witnesses and evidence, the Magistrate is justified in treating it as a complaint.

Special Sensitivity Required in Sexual Offense Cases

While upholding the Magistrate's discretion, the High Court highlighted the need for sensitivity in cases involving sexual harassment or assault. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in XYZ vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the bench noted that courts should not further burden traumatized victims. However, it clarified that this sensitivity does not mean an FIR must be ordered even when the victim is fully aware of all facts and identities, and can prove the case through the complaint procedure.

"The judge has to be conscious of these factors and rise above any such reservations to ensure that they do not cloud the real facts and the actions which are attributable to the accused persons."

No Illegality In Treating Simple Allegations As Complaint Case

In the present case, the High Court found that the applicant was fully aware of the identities of the accused and the specific facts of the incident. Since no specialized investigation like CCTV retrieval or scientific forensic analysis by the police was required to establish the truth, the CJM’s decision to treat the application as a complaint case was deemed legally sound. The court reiterated that the "inner and outer limit" of this jurisdiction is a case-to-case determination based on the nature of the allegations.

"It is not necessary that in every case where a complaint has been filed... the Magistrate should direct the police to investigate the crime merely because an application has also been filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (now 175(3) BNSS)."

The High Court concluded that the Magistrate had rightly exercised his judicial discretion by treating the application as a complaint case, as the applicant possessed the material evidence required to proceed. Finding no material illegality or procedural irregularity in the lower court's order, the bench rejected the application. The Registrar General was further directed to circulate the judgment to all subordinate courts for guidance on the exercise of powers under the BNSS.

Date of Decision: May 19, 2026