Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 11313
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Farjand Ali, J
Jogendra Pal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4503/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Moti Singh
For the Respondents: N.S. Chandawat, Manjeet Godara
A Magistrate has the judicial discretion under Section 225 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to conduct a preliminary inquiry or direct a limited police investigation to determine the sufficiency of grounds for issuing process, and is not legally obligated to order the registration of an FIR for every complaint.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 223, 225, 175 - Complaint before Magistrate - Scope of inquiry vs. Police investigation - Petitioner challenged order where Magistrate sought police assistance for preliminary inquiry instead of ordering FIR registration - Court held that Magistrate has discretion to conduct inquiry under S. 225 BNSS after examining complainant under S. 223 - Such inquiry is facilitative and not a full-fledged FIR investigation under S. 175 - No legal error found in Magistrate's procedure. (Paras 4.1, 4.6, 4.8, 4.12)
Facts of the case:
A criminal complaint was filed before the Magistrate, who examined the complainant under Section 223 BNSS. Finding insufficient immediate material, the Magistrate invoked Section 225 BNSS to seek police assistance for a limited inquiry to determine if there were sufficient grounds for process, rather than ordering the registration of an FIR. The petitioner challenged this as erroneous, contending that an FIR registration should have been directed.
Findings of Court:
The Court concluded that the Magistrate exercised proper judicial discretion. The procedure under Section 225 BNSS is preliminary and distinct from the full police investigation under Section 175, aiming only to assist the court in deciding whether to issue process. No illegality or perversity was found in the Magistrate's order.
Issues: Whether the Magistrate was legally bound to order registration of an FIR instead of holding a preliminary inquiry under Section 225 BNSS upon receipt of a complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The investigation under Section 225 BNSS is a limited, inquisitorial tool meant to assist the Magistrate's judicial mind, and differs qualitatively from the adversarial police investigation involving coercive powers under Section 175 BNSS. The choice of procedure remains within the Magistrate's discretion.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Order
REPORTABLE
BY THE COURT:-
1. By way of the instant Misc. Petition, the petitioner has laid a challenge to the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, in Criminal Complaint No.82/2025, whereby the learned Magistrate, instead of directing registration of an FIR and investigation in the manner sought by the petitioner, has proceeded to adopt the course of inquiry permissible under law and has sought assistance of the police for the limited purpose of facilitating such inquiry.
2. The facts of the case are that upon presentation of the complaint, the learned Magistrate proceeded to examine the complainant under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the BNSS”). It is noteworthy that the complainant did not choose to produce any supporting witnesses or documentary evidence at that stage.
2.1. In the backdrop of the allegations made in the complaint, and upon preliminary satisfaction, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 06.05.2025, deemed it appropriate to forward the complaint to the concerned police authority for the purpose of conducting a limited investigation and to submit a report, so as to assist the Court in forming an opinion as to whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding further in the matter. The case was accordingly posted for further consideration on 13.06.2025.
2.2. Aggrieved by the said course adopted by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner has approached this Court contending that the prayer for registration and investigation of the FIR has been erroneously declined. Hence the instant Misc. Petition.
3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced and upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the learned Magistrate has scrupulously adhered to the statutory framework envisaged under the BNSS.
4. Before adverting to the merits of the controversy, it is apposite to delineate the statutory architecture governing complaints before a Magistrate under the BNSS.
4.1. Section 223 BNSS embodies the foundational requirement that while taking cognizance of an offence on a complaint, the Magistrate shall examine the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, upon oath, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced into writing. This provision serves as a preliminary judicial filter, ensuring that frivolous, vexatious or untenable complaints do not proceed unchecked. The said stage assumes significance as it marks the point where the Magistrate applies judicial mind and assumes seisin over the matter.
4.2. A significant and progressive departure introduced under the BNSS is the incorporation of a participatory safeguard, whereby the proposed accused is accorded a limited right of hearing at the pre-process stage. This innovation seeks to infuse procedural fairness and to prevent mechanical issuance of process without due application of mind, thereby strengthening the balance between the rights of the complainant and the proposed accused.
4.3. At this juncture, it becomes necessary to reproduce Section 225 BNSS (corresponding to Section 202 CrPC), which governs postponement of issue of process and the scope of inquiry/investigation at this stage:
“BNSS Section 225 – Postponement of issue of process
(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 212, may, if he thinks fit, and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding:
Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made,—
(a) wher
