The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the principles governing the exercise of powers by a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) regarding the registration of an FIR or treating an application as a complaint are applicable to proceedings under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), 2023.
The Bench of Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla dismissed an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., upholding the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, who had treated an application seeking police investigation as a complaint case.
Background of the Case
The applicant, Pradeep Kumar, approached the High Court challenging the order dated September 18, 2024, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat. The applicant had moved an application under Section 175(3) of the B.N.S.S. alleging a brutal assault on his brother, Sandeep, on July 29, 2024.
According to the allegations, the opposite parties, due to previous enmity, tied Sandeep’s leg with barbed wire to a motorcycle and dragged him, resulting in the amputation of his leg. The applicant alleged police inaction despite complaints to the Station House Officer and the Superintendent of Police.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, instead of directing the police to register an FIR and investigate, treated the application as a complaint under Section 223 of the B.N.S.S. and issued notices to the accused.
Submissions of the Parties
The counsel for the applicant argued that the Magistrate acted arbitrarily by treating the application as a complaint. It was contended that the matter required a police investigation for spot inspection, recovery of the weapon and motorcycle, and the arrest of the accused, which necessitates custodial interrogation. The counsel submitted that the Magistrate wrongly relied on the decision in Sukhwasi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2007), which pertained to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., arguing that the same considerations should not apply to the new B.N.S.S. provisions.
Conversely, the counsel for the opposite parties and the Additional Government Advocate defended the Magistrate’s order. They argued that the provisions of Section 175(3) B.N.S.S. are pari materia (on the same subject) to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Reliance was placed on the High Court’s decision in Lalaram Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2021), asserting that the Magistrate exercised valid judicial discretion.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court examined the provisions of Section 175(3) and 175(4) of the B.N.S.S. alongside Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
Justice Shukla observed that while Section 175(3) B.N.S.S. has expanded the scope of the Magistrate’s powers—allowing for preliminary inquiry and consideration of submissions by police officers—the core principles regarding the decision to order an investigation or proceed as a complaint remain unchanged.
The Court noted:
“The principles, however, governing the exercise of powers by a Magistrate when it comes to deciding whether to order for an investigation or treating that application as a complaint, are still the same as those under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.”
The Court affirmed that the propositions of law summarized in Lalaram Vs. State of U.P. apply to proceedings under Section 175(3) B.N.S.S. In Lalaram, it was held that where the complainant is in possession of complete details of the accused and witnesses, and no evidence requires collection solely by police powers (like recovery of stolen property or complex forensic evidence), the procedure of a complaint case should be adopted.
Regarding the Magistrate’s reasoning, the High Court found it to be in consonance with established legal principles. The Magistrate had recorded that the applicant was fully aware of the facts and that no technical evidence was required that necessitated a police investigation.
Furthermore, regarding the need for recovery of evidence from the spot, the Court noted the significant lapse of time:
“After the lapse of more than one and a half years from the date of the incident, no physical evidence would reasonably remain at an open place, and therefore, recovery of blood-stained soil at this stage would not be possible.”
Decision
The High Court held that the Magistrate had rightly exercised discretion in treating the application as a complaint. The Court found no legal or factual infirmity in the impugned order.
“The Learned Magistrate has rightly treated the application under Section 175(3) B.N.S.S, as a complaint by applying the same principles, as were applicable to the exercise of powers under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.”
Consequently, the application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. was dismissed.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others
- Case Number: APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. 18266 of 2025
- Judge: Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla
