The court affirmed that statutory safeguards must be followed diligently when prosecuting public servants, invalidating orders that fail to comply.

JUDGMENT :-

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 :-

(i) Abhinanda Jha Vs. Dinesh Mishra (AIR 1968 SC 117)

(ii) Madhubala Vs. Suresh Kumar [(1997)8 SCC 476],

(iii) Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2025 SC 970)

(iv) Prajna Prakash Nayak Vs. State of Odisha and Ors. (Criminal M. P. 107 of 2025)

(v) Arun P. Gidh Vs. Chandraprakash Singh and Ors. (2024 SCC OnLine Bom. 1028),

(vii) Pawan Kharbanda Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2025 SCC OnLine P&H 642)

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 – informant Mr. Shah has supported the impugned order submitting t