In a significant ruling clarifying the procedural position under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the Allahabad High Court has held that a person suspected of having committed a crime—referred to as a “prospective accused”—has no locus standi to challenge a Magistrate’s direction to register a First Information Report (FIR) and investigate the matter.
The decision was rendered by Justice Dinesh Pathak while dismissing an application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS by Kamlesh Meena and two others. The applicants had challenged the 5 July 2025 order passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, directing the registration of an FIR against them and ordering an investigation based on an application filed under Section 173(4) of the BNSS by one Veerendra Singh.
Background of the Case
Veerendra Singh, a retired Bank of India manager and a member of the Scheduled Caste community, had alleged that the applicants—who were also bank employees—conspired to defame and falsely implicate him. According to his complaint, a forged letter under the name of “Ramesh Chand” was sent to senior bank officials accusing him of misconduct. He also claimed that his travel bills were tampered with and the associated travel agency was pressured to declare them as forged.
After failing to get a response from the local police and Commissioner of Police, Singh moved the Magistrate under Section 173(4) of the BNSS. The Magistrate, after conducting an inquiry and considering reports from the concerned police station and the bank, directed the registration of an FIR and investigation.
Arguments
Counsel for the applicants argued that the Magistrate had not followed proper procedures under Sections 173 and 175 of the BNSS before directing the FIR. They also submitted that departmental proceedings were pending against the complainant, and the present complaint was an attempt to stall them.
They relied on several judgments, including Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra, Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, and Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, to argue that a direction to investigate under such circumstances could be challenged by the prospective accused.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Anil Tiwari, appearing for the complainant, argued that the application under Section 528 BNSS was not maintainable in light of the Full Bench decision in Father Thomas v. State of U.P., 2011 (1) ADJ 333 (FB), which held that a prospective accused has no right to challenge an order under Section 156(3) CrPC before cognizance is taken.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court rejected the applicants’ challenge, noting that the Magistrate had indeed applied judicial mind before issuing the direction. The Magistrate had sought reports from both the police and bank authorities, evaluated the allegations, and concluded that a cognizable offence was made out, necessitating police investigation.
Justice Pathak referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1, observing that once a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the registration of FIR is mandatory.
The Court further relied on Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 569, reiterating that a person accused has no right to be heard at the pre-cognizance stage.
Justice Pathak emphasized that:
“It is abundantly clear that the prospective accused has no locus standi to challenge a direction for investigation of a cognizable case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C [now Section 175(3) BNSS] before cognizance or issuance of process against the accused.”
The Court found no illegality, abuse of process, or failure of justice in the Magistrate’s order warranting interference under Section 528 of the BNSS.
Decision
Holding the application as not maintainable, the Court concluded:
“The present applicants, who are the prospective accused, have no locus standi to assail the direction for investigation under Section 173(4) read with 175(3) BNSS before the summoning/cognizance stage.”
The application was accordingly dismissed.
