Supreme Court Refers Question Of Bail Under UAPA vs Article 21 To Larger Bench; Grants Interim Bail To Accused Due To Prolonged Incarceration Absence Of Accused's Name In Inquest Report Not A Ground For Bail; Purpose Is Limited To Ascertaining Cause Of Death: Supreme Court Article 32 Jurisdiction Not For Those Who Refuse To Avail Remedies Provided By High Court: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Of Odisha Sisters Mere Utilization Of Materials At Project Site Doesn't Create Liability Without Privity Of Contract: Orissa High Court Rejects Plaint Against Principal Employer SBI Negligent In Granting Large Loans Without Assessing Repayment Capacity; Harsh On Small Borrowers: Supreme Court Sarpanch Awarding Contracts To Husband’s Firm Constitutes Misuse Of Position; Disqualification Provisions Must Be Interpreted Expansively: Supreme Court Intra-Court Appeal Maintainable Against Single Judge’s Order Initiating Contempt Even If No Punishment Imposed: Supreme Court 60% Deduction For Development Charges Justified Even If Land Is Acquired For Setting Up Sub-Station: Supreme Court UAPA | Mere Statement Of Co-Accused Insufficient To Deny Bail If No Recovery Made; Constitutional Courts Must Lean Toward Liberty: Punjab & Haryana HC Contemporaneous Witness Account Of Assault Admissible As ‘Res Gestae’ Under Section 6 Evidence Act: Allahabad High Court Police Cannot Investigate Advocate’s Professional Misconduct, Bar Council Is Sole Empowered Body: Bombay High Court Quashes 'Malicious' FIRs Against Former SPP, Ex-CP PMLA Prosecution Can't Continue If Person Exonerated Of Predicate Offence After Full Investigation: Calcutta High Court NDPS Act | Section 42 Compliance Not Required For Search In Public Places Or Transit; Section 50 Applies Only To Personal Search: Chhattisgarh High Court Secondary Electronic Evidence Inadmissible Without Mandatory Certificate; Sending To FSL Before Deciding Admissibility Is Patent Illegality: Gujarat High Court Disciplinary Proceedings Initiated During Service Can Continue Post-Superannuation; Bank Officers Handle Public Funds In Trust: J&K & Ladakh High Court Orissa High Court Denies Bail To 17 Accused In Police Recruitment Paper Leak Scandal, Says Scam Corrodes Public Trust Co-Sharer Seeking Title By Adverse Possession Must Prove Clear Ouster And Date When Possession Became Hostile: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Certificate Issued To IO During Probe Is A 'Statement' Under Section 161 CrPC, Hit By Section 162 Bar: Delhi High Court Private Un-Aided Schools Don't Need Prior Permission From DoE To Hike Fees At Start Of Academic Session: Delhi 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