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
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal basis for jurisdiction under article 227 (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. procedural requirements for investigation orders (Para 4 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's interpretation of statutory provisions regarding investigations (Para 5 , 6 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. directions for resubmitting application in compliance with section 175(3) (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. final disposition of the case (Para 16 , 17) |
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
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....
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
