SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(All) 566

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
Brij Raj Singh, J.
Roli – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. and others - Opposite Parties
Application U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1531 of 2026
Decided On : 19-05-2026 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Dwijendra Mishra, Rajneesh Mishra, Vishva Deep Pandey
For the Opposite Party : G.A.

A Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is not mandatorily required to direct registration of a case for cognizable offences. They may exercise judicial discretion to treat an application as a complaint case if the complainant possesses access to the necessary evidence.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 175(3) - Power of Magistrate - Discretionary nature - Registration of case vs. Complaint case - A Magistrate is not bound to direct registration of a case upon the disclosure of a cognizable offence in every instance - An order passed by a Magistrate for treating an application as a complaint case warrants no interference if same is based on a judicious application of mind. (Paras 4, 26, 27)

(B) Investigation - Discretion of Magistrate - When to direct police investigation - Where evidence is within the reach of the victim or can be produced through court assistance, registration of a case is not mandatory - A direction for police investigation is appropriate only when complex evidence requires professional police expertise which is not accessible to the complainant. (Paras 14, 21, 26, 27)

Facts of the case:
The applicant filed an application before the Magistrate alleging sexual assault and molestation after the local authorities failed to register a request for an official report. The Magistrate, exercising judicial discretion, treated the application as a complaint case rather than directing an immediate police investigation. The applicant sought to set aside this order, arguing that the authorities should be directed to register the case.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the Magistrate has the discretion to either direct the police to register a case or to treat the application as a complaint case. The court found that because the applicant was in a position to present evidence before the court, there was no requirement for specialized police investigation to unearth the relevant facts.

Issues: Whether the Magistrate is mandatorily required to direct the registration of a case under Section 175(3) upon the disclosure of a cognizable offence, and whether the Magistrate erred in treating the application as a complaint case in the current circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: The power of the Magistrate is discretionary rather than mandatory. The decision to order an investigation must be based on the necessity of professional police expertise to access evidence that is otherwise unavailable to the complainant. Where the complainant can substantiate their allegations through evidence already at their disposal without utilizing state-led investigative machinery, the procedure of a complaint case is legally valid.

Result: Application rejected.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts leading to the application against the magistrate's refusal to order registration of fir. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. conflict between mandatory police registration of cognizable offenses versus magistrate's judicial discretion. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. analysis of judicial precedents validating that magistrates possess discretion to treat applications as complaints. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. magistrate's discretion in section 156(3) is case-specific; fir should be ordered only if complex police investigation is required. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
5. final adjudication dismissing the application and standardizing procedural instructions for subordinates. (Para 29 , 30)

JUDGMENT :

BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

1. The present application under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed seeking setting aside the order dated 20.03.2026 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda in Criminal Misc. Case No.535 of 2026, CNR No.UPGD040035172026, Smt. Roli Vs. Kanaiyalal and others, under Section 173(4) of BNSS, 2023, Police Station Colonelganj, District Gonda.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.12.2025 at 6 P.M. when the applicant, who is a married women aged about 22 years, was bringing sugarcane leafs for feeding the animals from her sugarcane field, opposite parties no.2 to 5, ambushed in the sugarcane field, caught hold the applicant and started molesting her with malicious intent and forcibly dragged her to sugarcane filed with intention to rape her. When the applicant resisted, they beat her and tore her cloths due to which the applicant suffered severe injuries on her body. On alarm raised by the applicant, opposite parties no.2 to 5 ran away from there. On 25.12.2025 itself, the applicant gave an application to the Police Station Kotwali Colonelganj for lodging an FIR against opposite parties no.2 to 5 and also requested for her medical examination, but the police neither lodged the FIR against the opposite parties no.2 to 5 nor medical examination of the applicant was conducted. The applicant along with her husband went to the District Hospital, Gonda to get her medically examined on the very next day i.e. 26.12.2025.

3. It is said that when the police of police of Police Station Kotwali Colonelganj did not lodge the FIR on the application of the applicant, she moved applications to the Inspector General of Police Devipatan Zone, Gonda and to the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 27.12.2025 requesting therein to lodge an FIR against opposite parties no.2 to 5 and for taking appropriate action under the relevant provision of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. On 12.01.2026, the applicant also moved applications to the Superintendent of Police, Gonda and to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Devipatan Range, Gonda through Registered Post for lodging an FIR against the accused.

4. When the police authorities did not lodge the FIR despite the repeated requests of the applicant, she moved an application under Section 175(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on 20.02.2026 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda for lodging an FIR. However, the Magistrate instead of passing an order for lodging the FIR, has treated the application as a complaint case vide impugned order 20.03.2026 without applying his judicious mind by indicating that applicant has personal knowledge of all the facts, which she can prove herself and by way of other witnesses ignoring the fact that the evidence required in this matter to unearth the truth is not in the access of the applicant and is only in access of the police, who can collect the evidence after thorough investigation and fix for statement of the applicant under Section 223 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on 20.04.2026.

5. Sri Dwijendra Mishra, counsel for the applicant has submitted that once the cognizable offence is made out for which an application under Section 175(3

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top