Medical Report Missing Injured's Signature, Unexplained 9-Hour FIR Delay Fatal To Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Acquits Attempt To Murder Convicts Fresh Notice Mandatory To Ex-Parte Defendants If Plaint Is Substantively Amended: Madhya Pradesh High Court Divorce | Initial Bickering Between Spouses During Early Marriage Does Not Constitute Cruelty: Madras High Court Sports Council Cannot Dissolve Registered Society Or Conduct Its Elections; Can Only Withdraw Recognition: Kerala High Court Incarceration Without Trial Amounts To Punishment: Himachal Pradesh HC Grants Bail To Murder Accused Denied Medical Care In Jail Compliance Is Not Protection: Kerala High Court Holds Local Authority Cannot Deny Industrial License Merely Over Unscientific Public Protests Allotment Of Seat By Bypassing Higher-Ranked Candidates In Merit List Results In Gross Injustice: Calcutta High Court Dismisses LLM Admission Plea Blacklisting Not An Automatic Consequence Of Contract Termination, Requires Specific Show-Cause Notice: Supreme Court Power Of Attorney Cannot Operate As Mode Of Succession To Religious Office Of Sajjadanashin: Supreme Court Higher-Ranking Employees Cannot Claim Parity In Punishment With Subordinates Under Article 14: Supreme Court Waqf Board Lacks Jurisdiction To Appoint 'Sajjadanashin', Civil Court Can Decide Dispute As Office Is Distinct From 'Mutawalli': Supreme Court 144 BNSS | Husband Cannot Directly Challenge Ex-Parte Maintenance Order In High Court, Must Apply For Recall: Allahabad High Court No Absolute Bar On Relying Upon Post-Notification Sale Deeds For Determining Land Acquisition Compensation: Bombay High Court 138 NI Act | Plea That Cheque Was Stolen Is An Afterthought If No Police Complaint Is Lodged: Orissa High Court Upholds Conviction Cannot Expect Claimant To Preserve Every Bill: P&H High Court Enhances Accident Compensation From Rs 95,000 To Rs 7.7 Lakhs Auction Sale Remains 'Inchoate' If 75% Balance Paid Beyond Statutory Time, Borrower Can Redeem Property: 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