Case at a glance: The Allahabad High Court has set aside a Special Judge's order directing registration of a case against police personnel, holding that the safeguards in Section 175(3) and (4) of the BNSS are substantive, not formalities. It issued 11 directions to all judicial officers in Uttar Pradesh on handling such applications against public servants.
The Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Maharajganj, on an application under Section 173(4) BNSS, directed registration of a case against a Sub-Inspector, a constable and other police personnel. The complainants alleged that about 20 police personnel entered their house at night without a warrant or a female officer during a land dispute, with obscene conduct and caste slurs.
The appellant, the investigating officer in cross-cases between the families, said the police acted on a 112 call and the complaint was a counter-blast.
The Key Question Before the Court
Did the Special Judge follow the BNSS procedure, including the safeguards for public servants, before directing investigation?
Sections 173(4) and 175 Work Together
The Court held that Section 173(4) does not itself empower a Magistrate to direct an FIR; that power lies in Section 175(3), and the two operate in sequence. Section 175(3) adds safeguards absent in Section 156(3) CrPC, including an affidavit, a decision on whether inquiry is needed, and consideration of the police officer's submission.
Section 175(4), requiring a report from the superior officer and the public servant's version, “is substantive and cannot be reduced to an empty formality”. The impugned order was non-speaking and the omission went to the root of jurisdiction. The Court relied on Priyanka Srivastava, Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, Om Prakash Ambadkar and others, and expressed no view on the allegations.
What the Court Actually Held
- The appeal was allowed; the Special Judge's order set aside and proceedings arising solely from it quashed.
- Eleven directions issued to all judicial officers in UP, including treating the Section 175(3) inquiry as substantive, considering the police report first, recording a finding on nexus with official duty, and passing speaking orders.
- District Judges and District Monitoring Cells to review compliance monthly; judgment to be circulated.
- The directions do not bar aggrieved persons from seeking investigation or give public servants immunity.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It is among the first detailed High Court guidance on Section 175 BNSS.
- It balances police accountability with protection against counter-blast complaints.
- It standardises practice across UP's trial courts.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Complainants' Counsel
- File a Section 173 complaint first, then a Section 175(3) application on affidavit.
- Address the official-duty question and anticipate the superior officer's report.
For Police Officers' Counsel
- Insist on compliance with Section 175(4) and a speaking order.
Key Takeaways
- Section 173(4) and Section 175(3) work in sequence.
- Section 175(4) safeguards are substantive.
- Orders must be speaking.
- Eleven directions now guide UP courts.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. The Court held the power comes from Section 175(3), exercised with its safeguards.
No. The Court said the directions do not bar investigation or grant immunity.
No. It expressed no view on the merits.
Conclusion
The judgment builds a careful procedure for complaints against public servants under the new criminal code.
Practical takeaway: Follow the Section 173 to 175 sequence and the Section 175(4) safeguards strictly in complaints against police.