Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PRANJAL DAS
Nun Pertin S/o Shri Bijoy Pertin – Appellant
Versus
State of AP – Respondent
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Pranjal Das, J.
Heard Mr. L. Perme, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
2. This is an application filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India r/w Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking interference with the impugned order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the CJM, Roing, Lower Dibang Valley District, Arunachal Pradesh in Misc. (Criminal) Case No. 24/2025 – whereby accepting the application of the informant/complainant under Section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023 [corresponding to Section 156(3) CrPC] the court was pleased to direct the police to investigate the FIR dated 27.02.2025 lodged by the informant.
3. The aforesaid direction of the learned Magistrate after compliance by the police resulted in registration of Roing P.S. Case No. 59/2025 under Section 318(3)/336(3)/3(5) of BNS, 2023.
4. The primary contention of the petitioner side is that the direction for investigation was given by the learned Magistrate without compliance with the procedural requirement of Section 175(3) of BNSS, especially, the hearing of the investigating officer. Before proceeding further, the said stat
The non-compliance with the mandatory hearing requirement of Section 175(3) BNSS renders the Magistrate's directive for police investigation void.
Magistrates have discretion under Section 175(3) B.N.S.S. to treat applications for investigation as complaints, emphasizing judicial reasoning and necessity for police involvement.
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.
Prospective accused cannot challenge the direction for F.I.R. registration and investigation before cognizance, affirming no locus standi in such cases.
Prospective accused lack locus standi to challenge an order directing F.I.R. registration before cognizance is taken, validating the inherent jurisdiction limitations as per Section 528 and Section 1....
The court upheld the discretion of the Magistrate to treat an application under Section 173(4) as a complaint case, emphasizing that such discretion must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.
The court emphasized the necessity of conducting a preliminary inquiry before proceeding with an FIR to prevent abuse of legal process in cases with potential ulterior motives.
The court emphasized that a Magistrate must apply judicial discretion and ascertain the existence of a cognizable offence before directing police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
Permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. can be granted by the Magistrate upon application from the complainant, validating subsequent investigations. Procedural technicalities do not invalidate proce....
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
