MSME Award Cannot Be Challenged Under Article 226 To Avoid Mandatory Pre-Deposit Under Section 19: Allahabad High Court Electricity Company Strictly Liable For Death Due To Snapped Wire; Court Enhances Compensation Beyond Claimed Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court MPID Act Has No Provision To Release Attached Property To Owner After Auction Order Is Passed: Bombay High Court Non-Service Of Requisition Order Doesn't Vitiate Land Acquisition; Section 3(2) Of 1948 Act Is Directory: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Valid Journey Ticket From Deceased Is Strong Evidence Of Bona Fide Travel; Tribunal Can't Elevate Inference To Proof: Delhi High Court J&K High Court Quashes PSA Detention Of MLA; Says Public Servants’ Annoyance At Representative Raising Grievances Not ‘Public Disorder’ Vague Allegations Of Caste Abuse Without Mentioning Specific Caste Name Do Not Sustain Prima Facie Case Under SC/ST Act: Karnataka High Court Public Interest Litigation Not Maintainable In Service Matters: Madras High Court Dismisses Challenge To Reinstatement Of Panchayat Officials Choice Of Principal Is Absolute Right Of Minority Institutions, Seniority Cannot Be Imposed By State: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mutation Order Passed Without Notice To Parties Is Legally Unsustainable; Natural Justice Mandatory: Orissa High Court Right To Life Casts Obligation On State To Not Defeat Employee’s Medical Entitlements Through Technicalities: Punjab & Haryana High Court Registered Sale Deeds Presumed Valid; Specific Performance Of Oral Re-conveyance Agreement Requires Cogent Evidence: Kerala High Court Uttering 'F*** Off' During Work Spat Lacks Sexual Intent, Not Sexual Harassment Under Section 354-A IPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court High Court Cannot Implead State To Interpret Notifications In Private Litigations Under Article 227: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Act As Appellate Court Or Substitute Its Own View Under Article 227 Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Contradictory Dying Declaration Recorded After Tutoring Cannot Form Basis Of Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Father-In-Law In Dowry Death Case Section 498A IPC Not A Weapon To Settle Grudges Against In-Laws Without Specific Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Father-In-Law Physical Relationship For Years With Prior Knowledge Of Each Other's Marital Status Not Rape Under 'False Promise Of Marriage': Supreme 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