Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SACHIN S. DESHMUKH
Namrata d/o Subhash Pawar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges magistrate's order. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. contentions on procedural missteps by the magistrate. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. responses from the respondents against the petitioner's claims. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. definition of public servants in the context of the case. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. mandatory procedures for initiating investigation discussed. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. discusses judicial overreach by the magistrate. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. revisiting safeguards under bnss post clarification. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. court's responsibility in scrutinizing investigations. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 9. emphasizes procedural compliance and revisional court's responsibilities. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 10. final remarks on the lack of statutory adherence. (Para 33 , 34) |
| 11. conclusion and allowance of the petition. (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
JUDGMENT :-
SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.05.2025 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Criminal Revision Application No. 24 of 2025, confirming the order dated 06.05.2025 of the l
Failure to comply with procedural safeguards in the registration of FIR against public servants, specifically ignoring the necessity of a report from a superior officer, renders the Magistrate's orde....
Magistrate must mandatorily comply with Section 175(4) BNSS safeguards—report from public servant's superior and consideration of servant's assertions—before ordering FIR under 175(3) against officia....
The court clarified that Section 175(4) of the BNSS is discretionary, not mandatory, allowing the Magistrate to independently decide on investigations without undue influence from prior orders.
The court clarified that a Magistrate's discretion under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously, especially regarding public servants requiring prior sanction under Section 197.
The Magistrate has discretion under Section 175(3) of the BNSS to decide whether to register an FIR based on the application, assessing whether a cognizable offense is made out.
Point of law : Revisional jurisdiction can be exercised if there appears to be patent defect in exercise of jurisdiction or irregularities manifestly crept in while passing an order and this eventual....
The Magistrate has discretion under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to determine the necessity of police investigation based on the nature of allegations and available evidence.
A Magistrate must not express views on the merits of a case when directing an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., as it may compromise the integrity of the investigation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
