The Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has ruled that a Magistrate is not always bound to pass an order to register a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (formerly Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)), even if the allegations in the application disclose a cognizable offence.
Upholding an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Gonda, which treated a woman’s sexual harassment application as a complaint case rather than directing the police to register an FIR, Justice Brij Raj Singh held that when a complainant is in possession of complete case details and material evidence, the Magistrate may rightly opt for the complaint procedure.
Background of the Case
The applicant, a 22-year-old married woman, alleged that on December 25, 2025, at 6:00 PM, while she was collecting sugarcane leaves for feeding animals from her field, opposite parties no. 2 to 5 ambushed her. They allegedly caught hold of her, molested her with malicious intent, and forcibly dragged her into the field to rape her. When she resisted, they beat her, tore her clothes, and inflicted severe bodily injuries before fleeing the scene when she raised an alarm.
The applicant submitted that she approached Police Station Kotwali Colonelganj on the same day to lodge an FIR and requested a medical examination, but the police failed to take action. Consequently, on December 26, 2025, she and her husband visited the District Hospital, Gonda, to get her medically examined.
Following persistent inaction by local police, the applicant sent registered applications to the Inspector General of Police (Devipatan Zone), the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, the Superintendent of Police (Gonda), and the Deputy Inspector General of Police. When these efforts yielded no results, she filed an application on February 20, 2026, under Section 175(3) of the BNSS before the CJM, Gonda, seeking directions for the registration of an FIR.
However, on March 20, 2026, the CJM Gonda treated her application as a complaint case rather than directing the police to register an FIR. The Magistrate noted that the applicant had personal knowledge of all facts and could prove them herself alongside other witnesses. Challenging this order, the applicant filed the present application under Section 528 of the BNSS (the counterpart of Section 482 of the CrPC for inherent powers) before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Applicant: Sri Dwijendra Mishra, alongside Sri Rajneesh Mishra and Sri Vishva Deep Pandey, counsels for the applicant, argued that once an application under Section 175(3) of the BNSS discloses a cognizable offence—especially a sexual offence—it is mandatory for the Magistrate to order the registration of an FIR.
To support their arguments, the counsels relied on the following judgments:
- Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1
- Mukesh Kharwar Vs. State of U.P. and others 2024 SCC OnLine All 6035
- XYZ Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (2023) 9 SCC 705
- Anmol Singh V. State of U.P. and others 2021 SCC OnLine All 7
- Gulab Chand Upadhyaya Vs. State of U.P. and others 2002 SCC OnLine All 1221
The counsels contended that a thorough police investigation was required to unearth the truth of the incident and that the CJM had acted mechanically without applying his judicious mind.
For the State: Sri Anurag Varma, learned AGA-I, alongside the Government Advocate (G.A.), opposed the application, arguing that a Magistrate is not bound in every case to direct the registration of an FIR if a cognizable offence is disclosed. He submitted that under Section 190 of the CrPC (and its corresponding BNSS provision), a Magistrate possesses the judicial discretion to either take direct cognizance of a complaint or direct the police to investigate.
The learned AGA-I relied upon several precedents, including:
- Waseem Haider Vs. State of U.P. and others 2020 SCC OnLine All 1866
- Sukhwasi Vs. State of U.P. 2007 SCC OnLine All 2637
- Kailash Vijay Vargiya Vs. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri and others (2023) 14 SCC 1
- Priti Agarwalla and others Vs. The State of GNCT of Delhi and others 2024 SCC OnLine SC 973
- Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2026) 2 SCC 622
- X Vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Revision No. 808 of 2025, decided on 22.09.2025)
- Shaligram Vs. State of U.P. and others (Application U/s 482 No. 25994 of 2024, decided on 23.08.2024)
- Kailash Nath Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. and others 2021 SCC OnLine All 478
The State argued that the landmark Lalita Kumari ruling establishes the mandatory duty of the police to register an FIR under Section 154 of the CrPC but does not restrict the judicial discretion of a Magistrate when choosing between ordering an investigation or taking direct cognizance of a complaint.
The Court’s Analysis
Justice Brij Raj Singh examined the legal provisions and precedent cases. Analyzing Lalita Kumari (supra), the Court agreed with the Division Bench ruling in Waseem Haider (supra) that the Lalita Kumari judgment centers strictly around the statutory obligation of the police to register an FIR and does not lay down the law regarding the judicial remedies available to an informant before a Magistrate if the police fail to act.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Om Prakash Ambadkar (supra), the Court observed:
“It is, thus, not necessary that in every case where a complaint has been filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. the Magistrate should direct the Police to investigate the crime merely because an application has also been filed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. even though the evidence to be led by the complainant is in his possession or can be produced by summoning witnesses, with the assistance of the court or otherwise.”
The High Court highlighted that, according to the Supreme Court, a Magistrate should only direct a police investigation when the active assistance and expertise of the State machinery are absolutely necessary, and the cause of justice would suffer without it:
“If the allegations made in the complaint are simple, where the Court can straightaway proceed to conduct the trial, the Magistrate is expected to record evidence and proceed further in the matter, instead of passing the buck to the Police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.”
Summarizing the scope of judicial discretion, the High Court outlined the structured options available to a Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS:
- To pass an order for the registration of an FIR;
- To treat the application as a complaint case and proceed accordingly;
- In cases where the evidence is of such a nature that it can only be collected through a thorough investigation by the police (e.g., CCTV footage, unknown accused, or evidence outside the complainant’s control), the Magistrate must order the registration of an FIR;
- In cases where the complainant possesses complete details and material evidence, the Magistrate may proceed via the complaint route, utilizing judicial discretion on a case-by-case basis.
The Decision
Applying these guidelines to the facts of the case, the Court observed that the applicant was fully aware of all the details, including the identity of the accused, and had already undergone a private medical examination at the District Hospital.
The Court concluded:
“In the present case, after perusing the complaint, this Court finds that there is no such evidence, which requires any investigation by the police. Therefore, the Magistrate has rightly passed the impugned order treating the application as a complaint case, which needs no interference.”
Finding the application devoid of merit, the High Court rejected it. Additionally, the Court directed the Registrar General to circulate a copy of the judgment to all subordinate courts through their respective District Judges for their perusal.
Case Details
- Case Title: Smt. Roli v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. and 4 others
- Case No.: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 1531 of 2026 (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:35795)
- Bench: Justice Brij Raj Singh
- Date of Judgment: May 19, 2026
- Counsel for Applicant: Sri Dwijendra Mishra, Sri Rajneesh Mishra, Sri Vishva Deep Pandey
- Counsel for Opposite Parties (State): Sri Anurag Varma (AGA-I), Government Advocate (G.A.)
