CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Sections 215 & 379 BNSS | Police Cannot Register FIR Without Judicial Satisfaction Where Alleged Offence Relates to Court Proceedings: Madhya Pradesh High Court

27 January 2026 11:49 AM

By: sayum


“Court Alone Can Set Criminal Law in Motion for Offences Affecting Justice System”, In a significant ruling that clarifies the procedural safeguards under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) concerning offences affecting the administration of justice, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the police cannot independently register an FIR in cases involving alleged offences committed in relation to court proceedings.

Justice Vivek Jain partially allowed the challenge raised by Shailendra Sharma and others against the order passed by an Executing Court directing the police to investigate and, if necessary, register an FIR in a case of alleged impersonation of a surety in execution of a money decree.

The High Court held that the Executing Court had acted beyond its powers by delegating the discretion of FIR registration to police authorities without following the mandatory judicial procedure prescribed under Sections 215 and 379 of the BNSS, which govern prosecution for offences against public justice, especially when committed in the course of court proceedings.

“Offences Allegedly Committed in Relation to Court Proceedings Are Within the Exclusive Domain of Judicial Determination”

The dispute arose during the execution of a decree where an amount of ₹35.25 lakhs was disbursed upon the furnishing of a solvent surety. Later, the individual named as the surety — Jugal Kishore — appeared before the Court and categorically denied having stood as surety, alleging impersonation.

Subsequently, the judgment debtors filed an application under Section 379 BNSS (formerly Section 340 CrPC), seeking criminal prosecution for impersonation and fraud. However, instead of passing a speaking order on this application, the Executing Court directed police authorities to inquire into the matter and register an FIR if any offence was found.

The petitioners challenged this direction on the ground that the Executing Court failed to conduct any preliminary inquiry or form a judicial opinion as required under Section 379, and that the Court could not delegate the decision to register an FIR to the police in such cases.

Justice Vivek Jain observed:

“A police officer cannot directly register a crime for offences under Section 215 BNSS once the offence is committed in or in relation to a proceeding in Court. As per Section 379 BNSS, the Court has to cause preliminary enquiry and then make a complaint in writing.”

Court May Seek Police Assistance for Inquiry, But Decision to Register FIR Must Rest with the Court Alone

While acknowledging that courts may involve police authorities to conduct preliminary factual inquiries, the Court firmly held that this cannot extend to allowing the police to independently determine whether to initiate criminal proceedings.

“Though the Court in its discretion could have directed the police authorities to investigate the matter and furnish a report before the Court, the discretion to register FIR should not have been left to the police. It was for the Court to apply its mind after receiving the preliminary enquiry report,” Justice Jain ruled.

Accordingly, the High Court modified the impugned order dated 18.11.2025, and directed that while the police at Police Station M.P. Nagar, Bhopal may investigate the matter, no FIR shall be registered unless and until the Executing Court, upon receiving the report, records a judicial finding that such registration is warranted.

“BNSS Reinforces Judicial Control Over Prosecution for Offences Committed in Court”

In making this ruling, the Court relied on authoritative precedents including the Supreme Court's rulings in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah [(2005) 4 SCC 370] and Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar [(1998) 2 SCC 493], as well as a recent decision of the Kerala High Court in Saifdeen Y. v. State of Kerala, which unanimously reaffirm the principle that the criminal process for offences relating to court proceedings must be controlled and initiated by courts themselves, not the police.

This judgment is a crucial reminder of the non-delegable responsibility of courts to protect the sanctity of judicial proceedings. By reinforcing the requirement of judicial satisfaction under Sections 215 and 379 BNSS, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has insulated the criminal process from overreach by investigative agencies in matters that fundamentally concern the credibility and fairness of court procedures.

Date of Decision: 7 January 2026

 

Latest Legal News