Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1627

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
Namrata d/o Subhash Pawar - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 781 of 2025
Decided On : 10-11-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. Umesh Bodkhe Patil a/w Mr. Yash A. Jadhav
For the Respondent: Ms. M. N. Ghanekar, Mr. Mohit S. Shah

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 order unsustainable.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 175 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 156(3) - Registration of FIR - The petitioner challenged the order directing crime registration regarding alleged irregularities. The learned Magistrate's order lacked judicial reasoning and failed to follow statutory mandates to protect public servants from unjust prosecution. (Paras 3, 20, 24)

(B) Public Servant - Definition - The court defined 'public servant' under the BNSS, highlighting the need for compliance with procedural safeguards to prevent undue harassment. The absence of a report from a superior officer prior to investigation renders the order unsustainable. (Paras 13, 34)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused of irregularities in plot allotment, challenged the Magistrate's order allowing registration of an FIR without adequate reasoning or adherence to statutory requirement of consulting superior officers.

Findings of Court:
The procedural safeguard for public servants under Section 175(4) of BNSS must be followed; otherwise, the complaint lacks legal backing. The learned Magistrate's approach was contrary to statutory provisions and legal precedents.

Issues: The main legal question was whether the learned Magistrate properly applied statutory procedures before ordering the registration of a cognizable offence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that failure to obtain a report from the superior officer and to provide adequate reasoning constituted a breach of statutory obligations, leading to the unsustainability of the Magistrate's order.

Result: The petition was allowed, quashing the impugned order.

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 learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sindhkheda, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 50 of 2025, directing the registration of crime and investigation of the same under Section 175 (3) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “ BNSS ” for short).

3. Pursuant to the order rendered by the learned Magistrate, the Crime No. 112 of 2025 was registered at Sindhkheda Police Station in relation to alleged irregularities in allotment of plots in Nardana Industrial Area of Tahsil Sindhkheda, Dist. Dhule. The complainant, a Practicing Lawyer, filed a private complaint alleging that certain individuals obtained allotment of industrial plots in connivance with the officials of the MIDC, including the present petitioner, who is working as an Assistant, in order to commit the offences of criminal breach of trust, cheating and forgery.

4. Aggrieved by the said order of learned Magistrate, the petitioner approached the Revisional Court. The revision came to be dismissed endorsing the order of the learned Magistrate. Therefore, petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sapkal for petitioner submits that the order of the learned Magistrate vis-a-vis the Revisional Court are vitiated on account of non-application of mind. The Magistrate has grossly erred in recording that the complaint discloses cognizable offence warranting the investigation by the Police Machinery without assigning any reasons indicating judicial satisfaction.

6. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the learned Magistrate has committed overreach while directing to file charge-sheet. Statutory scheme under BNSS does not empower a Magistrate to issue such direction to the Investigating Officer to file charge-sheet. The statutory mandate incorporated in the statutory provisions by the legislature is with an object to protect the public servant from false and frivolous complaints and eventual prosecution, within meaning of Section 66 of Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act of 1961”) read with Section 2(29) of BNS is violated.

7. It is further submission that the provisions of Chapter XIII of the BNSS, more particularly, sub-section (4) of Section 175 which is aimed to protect the public servant against initiation of unwarranted proceedings, the Magistrate is under statutory obligation to receive the report containing the facts and circumstances of the incident from the Officer Superior to such officer, against whom the complaint is presented. This statutory protection could not be annihilated by the learned Magistrate while passing the order of registration of crime.

8. The learned Senior Counsel in support of submissions has placed reliance on the following judgments