Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raghenth Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikas Jain, AOR Mr. Muhammed Firdouz Av, Adv. Ms. Shrawani, Adv. Mr. Hardik Jayal, Adv. Mr. Akash Rajeev, Adv. Ms. Hima Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Aviral Saxena, Adv. Mr. Paritosh Goyal, Adv. Mr. Raunak Arora, Adv. Mr. Kavinesh Rm, Adv. Mr. Nilesh Singh Srineth, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Karthik, AOR Ms. Smrithi Suresh, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sugam Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Nayan Dham, Adv. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR Ms. Meena K Poulose, Adv. Mr. Akash Dikshit, Adv.

The court emphasized that when allegations are made against a public servant for acts committed in the course of official duties, such complaints must be supported by an affidavit. This requirement serves as a safeguard to prevent false, frivolous, or vexatious accusations and ensures accountability of the complainant. The court clarified that Section 175(4) of the relevant law is not an independent or standalone provision; rather, it must be read in conjunction with Section 175(3). The purpose of Section 175(4) is to introduce an additional procedural safeguard before ordering an investigation against a public servant, especially in cases involving allegations of offences committed during official duties (!) (!) .

The court also held that the term "complaint" in Section 175(4) should be understood as an allegation supported by an affidavit, and oral complaints alone would not suffice. This interpretation aligns with the object of the law to prevent misuse and protect public servants from malicious accusations. The procedural steps mandated include obtaining a report from the superior officer and considering the public servant’s version, but all these steps are contingent upon the complaint being supported by a sworn affidavit (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the court observed that if the complaint is related to acts in the discharge of official duties, the law requires that it be supported by an affidavit, fulfilling the conditions specified in the relevant procedural law. This requirement is essential to strike a balance between enabling genuine accountability and safeguarding public servants from unfounded allegations (!) (!) .

The court clarified that Section 175(4) should not be read as a proviso to Section 175(3), nor as an independent provision. Instead, it functions as a procedural extension that introduces additional safeguards when a complaint involves allegations of offences committed in the course of official duties by a public servant (!) (!) .

Finally, the court highlighted that the procedure to be followed by a judicial magistrate involves examining whether the complaint is supported by an affidavit and whether the allegations pertain to acts in official discharge. If the complaint is supported by an affidavit and the allegations are credible, the magistrate may order an investigation, considering the circumstances and the nature of the complaint. If not, the magistrate has the authority to reject the complaint or proceed under the general provisions (!) (!) .