Non-Compliance with Section 175 BNSS Vitiates Order for Police Investigation: Orissa HC - 2025-02-05

Magistrate's Mandate: Orissa High Court Clarifies Procedural Hurdles for FIRs Against Police

The Orissa High Court has underscored the importance of procedural rigor in criminal law, setting aside a lower court order that directed police to register an FIR against several law enforcement officials. In the case of Prajna Prakash Nayak v. State of Odisha , the Court emphasized that under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), magistrates must strictly adhere to specific safeguards before ordering investigations into the conduct of public servants.

The Backdrop: A Tale of Alleged Police Excess

The petitioner, Prajna Prakash Nayak, claimed he and his wife were victims of fraud involving Rs 6.2 crores. While initial FIRs were registered at Infocity and Airfield police stations, the petitioner alleged that officials from the Commissionerate Police, including senior officers, coerced him to withdraw the cases. These allegations escalated to claims of abduction at gunpoint, illegal detention, and severe mental and physical harassment, which reportedly caused significant trauma to the petitioner’s family and medical distress to his minor child.

Despite repeated attempts to report these incidents to higher police authorities, the petitioner's grievances went unaddressed. He eventually sought the intervention of the JMFC-II, Bhubaneswar, which ordered an investigation under Section 175(3) of the BNSS. When the police failed to comply with that order, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The Legal Conflict

The primary issue before Justice G. Satapathy was whether the Magistrate’s directive for an investigation complied with the transition from the CrPC to the BNSS. The state argued for more time, while the petitioner urged the Court to order the Crime Branch to take over the investigation, citing the defiance of the police officials.

Legal Analysis: The New Safeguards Under BNSS

The High Court identified significant jurisdictional errors in the Magistrate's order. Justice Satapathy pointed out that Section 175(4) of the BNSS introduces critical protections for public servants performing their official duties. Before directing an investigation into such persons, a Magistrate must: 1. Receive a report detailing facts from the public servant's superior. 2. Consider the public servant’s own assertions regarding the incident.

Citing the recent Supreme Court decision in Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra , the High Court noted that the BNSS does not just mirror the old Section 156(3) of the CrPC; it codifies higher levels of judicial and police accountability. The Magistrate in this case had acted without seeking the mandatory reports or providing the accused police officers an opportunity to submit their response, treating the procedure like a "post office" rather than exercising independent judicial discretion.

Key Observations

• "The new provision in sub-section (4) to S.175 of the BNSS is an additional safeguard provided for the public servant against whom an accusation of committing cognizable offence arising in course of discharge of his official duty has been made."
• "The Magistrate is not expected to mechanically direct investigation by the police without first examining whether... investigation by the State machinery is actually required or not."
• "The Magistrate... needs to adopt a judicial approach while considering an application seeking investigation by the police."
• "Any Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance U/S.210 of BNSS may order an investigation against a public servant... only after complying with the procedure prescribed in S.175(4)(a)(b) of the BNSS."

The Road Ahead

The High Court set aside the JMFC-II's order, remitting the matter back to the lower court to consider the complaint anew, this time in full compliance with the BNSS requirements. While the Court took a firm stance on ensuring the Magistrate follows the law, it also sternly reprimanded the police for their apparent defiance of the earlier court order. The ruling serves as a vital reminder that administrative procedures, even in cases of serious allegations against authorities, must be followed to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

This judgment acts as a key precedent for how courts should handle complaints against public servants under the new criminal codes, ensuring that the push for police accountability does not bypass constitutional and procedural protections.