Safeguards U/S 223 BNSS Cannot Be Mechanically Bypassed Before Directing FIR Against Public Servants: Rajasthan High Court
The Court held that even at the stage of directing investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS, the Magistrate is required to apply a judicial mind and cannot bypass statutory safeguards, particularly where allegations are directed against public servants acting in discharge of official duties.
Justice Farjand Ali, Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court held that safeguards under Section 223 BNSS, especially in cases involving public servants, cannot be rendered otiose by resorting to Section 175(3) in a perfunctory manner.
The Court further held that the power under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, cannot be exercised mechanically or routinely, and the Magistrate must apply a judicial mind while examining a complaint before directing registration of an FIR.
The Court was hearing a criminal revision petition challenging an order passed by the Special Judge directing registration of an FIR against police officials under Section 175(3) BNSS on the basis of a private complaint.
A Single Bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed: “The expression ‘while taking cognizance; employed in Section 223, is of wide amplitude and signifies not merely the final act of cognisance, but also the preparatory stage where the Magistrate is required to judiciously assess the complaint before proceeding further. Therefore, even if in the strict technical sense cognisance is not said to have been taken, the statutory safeguards embedded under Section 223, particularly in cases involving public servants, cannot be rendered otiose by resorting to Section 175(3) in a routine manner”.
The Magistrate, in such circumstances, the Bench added, “was under a legal obligation to examine the nature of allegations with greater circumspection and to consider whether the complaint necessitated adherence to the protective framework envisaged under Section 223(2), including affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned public servants before setting the criminal law into motion”.
The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Anand Purohit, assisted by Advocates D.S. Thind, Sonika and Mayank Roy, while the respondents were represented by Dy. G.A. N.S. Chandawat, along with Advocates Shrawan Choudhary and Bhom Singh.
Background
The revision petition arose from an order dated 21.11.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar, directing the Superintendent of Police to register an FIR against the petitioners, who were serving police officials, under Section 175(3) BNSS.
The complaint was filed by the respondent alleging irregularities in the investigation and inaction by police officials in relation to earlier FIRs. The record revealed that multiple FIRs had been registered between the parties, including FIR No. 500/2025 against the complainant and FIR No. 587/2025 lodged by him, which ultimately resulted in a negative final report indicating retaliatory intent.
Despite these circumstances, the Special Judge forwarded the complaint for registration of FIR without recording reasons and without complying with statutory requirements, leading to the present challenge.
Court’s Observation
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the statutory scheme under Sections 175(3) and 223 of the BNSS and the manner in which such powers are to be exercised.
At the outset, the Court held that although directing registration of FIR under Section 175(3) does not amount to taking cognisance in the strict sense, the process nonetheless involves judicial evaluation of the complaint and cannot be treated as a mere administrative formality.
It observed: “The very act of examining a complaint, appreciating its averments, and forming an opinion… necessarily postulates application of judicial mind… it reflects an incipient application of mind akin to the stage ‘while taking cognisance’…”
The Court emphasised that Section 223 BNSS introduces a structured safeguard at the pre-cognisance stage, particularly in cases involving public servants. It noted that the provision mandates: an opportunity of hearing to the public servant, and a report from the superior officer, before proceeding further.
Highlighting the object of the provision, the Court held: “This statutory requirement is not an empty formality but a substantive safeguard intended to protect public servants from frivolous, retaliatory, or vexatious prosecutions…”
The Court further observed that the allegations in the present case were intrinsically connected with official duties and arose in the backdrop of prior FIRs and cross-litigation, thereby requiring a cautious and balanced approach. It noted that such allegations are “highly disputed questions of fact” and cannot be accepted mechanically without preliminary scrutiny.
Criticising the impugned order, the Court held that the Special Judge failed to consider relevant aspects, including the existence of prior FIRs, the negative final report, and the apparent retaliatory nature of the complaint.
It observed: “The law does not countenance a blind or mechanical forwarding of complaints for registration of FIR; rather, it obligates the Magistrate to read, analyse, and scrutinise the complaint with care…”
The Court concluded that the power under Section 175(3) had been exercised in a perfunctory manner without due application of mind and in violation of statutory safeguards.
Conclusion
The Court held that the impugned order directing registration of FIR was unsustainable in law for failure to comply with mandatory requirements and for non-application of the judicial mind.
Accordingly, the order and all consequential proceedings were set aside. The matter was remanded back to the trial court for fresh consideration of the complaint in accordance with law, with directions to conduct a proper inquiry and adhere strictly to the requirements of Section 223 BNSS.
Cause Title: Prashant Kaushik & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:14705)
