Section 175(3) & (4) BNSS | Magistrate Cannot Pass Mechanical Orders For FIR Registration Against Public Servants Without Complying With Statutory Safeguards: Allahabad High Court

"The impugned order, being 'non-speaking and non-reasoned' and suffering from material non-application of mind, cannot be sustained." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling dated October 9, 2026, held that a Magistrate’s power under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to direct the registration of an FIR is not a mechanical process and must be exercised with judicial application of mind, particularly when the accused are public servants.

A bench of Justice Santosh Rai observed that the failure to adhere to the procedural safeguards prescribed under Sections 175(3) and 175(4) BNSS—which require the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry and consider the version of the accused public servant—renders such judicial orders legally unsustainable.

The appeal arose from an order passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Maharajganj, who had directed the registration of an FIR against a Sub-Inspector, a Constable, and 20 other police personnel based on an application under Section 173(4) BNSS. The complainants alleged that the police had forcibly entered their home, outraged their modesty, and made caste-based slurs. However, the record revealed that the complainants’ family members had been arrested by these same officers earlier that day in connection with a separate cognizable criminal case, and the allegations were seen by the appellants as a retaliatory "counter-blast."

The primary issues before the High Court were whether the Magistrate had erred in bypassing the mandatory procedural safeguards of the BNSS and whether an order directing investigation against public servants can be passed without considering the contemporaneous police record or providing the accused an opportunity to explain the circumstances of their official duties.

Court Explains Statutory Scheme Of BNSS

The Court clarified that Section 173(4) BNSS merely provides a remedy for an aggrieved person to approach the Superintendent of Police. The judicial power to direct an investigation is specifically traceable to Section 175(3) BNSS, which serves as the equivalent of Section 156(3) of the CrPC but with more stringent requirements. Unlike the old regime, the BNSS mandates that the Magistrate must consider the application, conduct "such inquiry as he thinks necessary," and consider the submissions of the police officer before issuing any direction.

Additional Safeguards Under Section 175(4) BNSS

The High Court emphasized that Section 175(4) BNSS introduces a critical procedural layer that was absent in the CrPC. This provision acts as a shield for public servants, requiring the Magistrate to obtain a report from the superior officer and consider the version of the public servant if the alleged offense arose in the course of discharging official duties. The Court noted that the legislative intent is to prevent the misuse of the legal process to settle personal scores or harass public officials who are performing their lawful duties.

"The power under Section 175(3) BNSS to order an investigation cannot be exercised in isolation from the specific statutory requirement contained in Section 175(4) BNSS where the complaint is against a public servant arising in the course of discharge of official duties."

Failure To Apply Judicial Mind

The bench remarked that the Special Judge had treated the complainants' allegations as "gospel truth" without adverting to the contemporaneous police records that showed the police were performing their official functions at the time of the alleged incident. The failure to record reasons for dispensing with the statutory inquiry rendered the impugned order a "mechanical approach" that defeated the purpose of the safeguards incorporated by the Legislature to prevent the filing of frivolous or mala fide complaints.

Comprehensive Guidelines Issued For Judiciary

To curb the recurring instances of mechanical orders, the Court issued a 10-point directive to all Judicial Officers in Uttar Pradesh. These guidelines mandate that any order under Section 175 BNSS must be a "speaking and reasoned" order. It explicitly requires Magistrates to verify compliance with Section 173 BNSS, consider police reports, determine whether an inquiry is necessary, and—where public servants are involved—make a specific finding on whether the alleged act bears a reasonable nexus with the discharge of official duty.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Special Judge, and directed that its judgment be circulated to all judicial officers, the Judicial Training and Research Institute, and district administration heads across the State to ensure strict adherence to these procedural mandates.

Date of Decision: 09 October 2026