Introduction
The Madras High Court, in this case, considered the procedure that a Magistrate has to follow before directing the police to investigate a complaint under Section 175(3) of the BNSS.
The Court also considered Section 175(4) because the complaint included allegations against public servants in connection with their official duties.
Facts of the Case
The dispute was related to a property measuring 11 cents. The first respondent stated that her father had purchased the property through a registered sale deed in 2001.
Later, she alleged that the petitioners had forged documents and transferred the property in favour of the petitioner’s husband through a settlement deed dated 09.06.2023. It was also alleged that the property was later mortgaged and a loan was obtained.
A complaint was given to the police. Since no proper action was taken, the complainant approached the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS and requested a direction for investigation.
The Magistrate directed the police to investigate the matter. Based on this direction, an FIR was registered against the petitioners and others for offences including forgery and cheating.
The accused persons then approached the Madras High Court challenging the Magistrate’s order.
Issue Before the Court:
The main question was whether the Magistrate could direct an investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS without following the procedure required under the provision.
The Court also considered whether Section 175(4) had to be followed since a Police Inspector and a Sub-Registrar were also named in the complaint.
Section 175(3) BNSS – What Procedure Should Be Followed?
The Court explained that an application under Section 175(3) must be supported by an affidavit.
Before directing an investigation, the Magistrate has to consider the application, conduct any necessary enquiry and consider the submissions made by the concerned police officer.
In this case, the application was not supported by an affidavit. The Magistrate also did not obtain any report or submission from the concerned police officer. Further, no notice was issued to the police officer before the order was passed.
Three Important Changes Under BNSS
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra & Others and pointed out three important changes under Section 175(3) BNSS when compared with Section 156(3) CrPC.
First, when the police refuse to register an FIR, approaching the Superintendent of Police is an important mandatory step.
Second, the Magistrate can conduct an enquiry before directing an investigation.
Third, the Magistrate has to consider the submissions of the concerned police officer before passing an order for investigation.
Therefore, the Magistrate cannot simply order an investigation without following the procedure provided under the BNSS.
Section 175(4) BNSS – Complaints Against Public Servants
The Court also dealt with Section 175(4) BNSS.
When a complaint is made against a public servant for an act done during the course of official duty, the Magistrate has to follow an additional procedure.
The Magistrate has to obtain a report about the facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to the concerned public servant. The Magistrate must also consider the explanation given by the public servant regarding the incident.
In the present case, the complaint also included a Police Inspector and a Sub-Registrar. The Court observed that the acts complained of were connected with their official duties.
Therefore, before directing an investigation, the Magistrate should have obtained the necessary reports from the superior officers.
The High Court’s Decision
The High Court found that the required procedure under Sections 175(3) and 175(4) BNSS was not followed.
The Magistrate had not obtained the required police submissions and reports and had also failed to follow the other mandatory requirements.
Therefore, the High Court set aside the Magistrate’s order directing investigation.
The Court also held that since the FIR was registered as a result of the Magistrate’s order, the FIR could not be sustained after the original order itself was set aside.
The Criminal Revision Petition was allowed. At the same time, the complainant was given liberty to take appropriate steps under Section 175 BNSS in accordance with law.
Conclusion
This judgment makes it clear that a Magistrate cannot directly order a police investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS without following the procedure given under the law.
The application must be supported by an affidavit, the Magistrate can conduct the necessary enquiry, and the submissions of the concerned police officer have to be considered.
Further, when the complaint is against a public servant for an act connected with official duty, the requirements under Section 175(4) also have to be followed.
The judgment therefore shows the importance of following the proper procedure before a Magistrate directs an investigation under the BNSS.
Case Details
Case: Jayasudha & Anr. v. T. Jaisudha & Ors Court: Madras High Court Date of Judgment: 21 August 2025 Judge: Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
