Ensuring Judicial Rigor: Orissa HC Reaffirms Mandatory Procedures for Complaints Against Police Under BNSS

In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court has underscored that a Magistrate cannot mechanically order a police investigation under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), particularly when allegations are leveled against public servants. Justice G. Satapathy ruled that the failure to adhere to the statutory mechanisms—designed to ensure accountability and fairness—constitutes a fatal procedural error.

A Tale of Alleged Excess

The petitioner, Prajna Prakash Nayak, along with his wife, had approached the court following a harrowing ordeal. Claiming to be victims of forgery and fraud involving an amount of ₹6.2 crores, the couple alleged that instead of legal recourse, they faced intimidation from senior police officers. The petitioner contended that officials from the Bhubaneswar Commissionerate Police, including the then-DCP and various In-Charge Inspectors, used coercive tactics—including abduction at gunpoint and mental harassment—to force a compromise in their existing criminal cases. Following repeated failures to register an FIR despite multiple communications, the petitioner successfully moved the JMFC-II, Bhubaneswar, for an investigation order. However, the police continued to defy these directives, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.

The Legal Crossroads: Balancing Access and Accountability

The primary dispute centered on whether the Magistrate had followed the "letter and spirit" of the BNSS. While the Magistrate had ordered an investigation under Section 175(3) (the equivalent of Section 156(3) of the old CrPC), the High Court observed a fundamental lapse: the Magistrate failed to invoke the specific safeguards provided in Section 175(4) of the BNSS, which applies when a complaint is made against a public servant acting in the discharge of official duties.

Justice Satapathy noted that the new legal framework demands greater accountability: * The requirement to obtain a report from the superior officer of the accused public servant. * The necessity for the Magistrate to consider the public servant’s assertions regarding the situation. * The mandatory nature of the affidavit as prescribed under Section 173(4).

Key Observations

The judgment explicitly highlights the need for judicial mindfulness:

> "The new provision in sub-section (4) to S.175 of 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 in the facts and circumstance of the case, investigation by the State machinery is actually required or not."

> "The Magistrate is, therefore, not supposed to act merely as a post office and needs to adopt a judicial approach while considering an application seeking investigation by the police."

Precedents and Principles Applied

The Court relied heavily on Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra (2025) , confirming that the changes introduced by the BNSS were specifically designed to prevent the misuse of judicial power by "unscrupulous litigants." Furthermore, the court reiterated the long-standing principles from Matajog Dobey v. H. C. Bihari and D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain , clarifying that even when a public servant acts in excess of their duty, there must be a "reasonable connection" between the act and their official role, which warrants a specific procedural approach to sanction and accountability.

The Road Ahead

In its final verdict, the Orissa High Court set aside the Magistrate's order dated October 9, 2024, citing the failure to adhere to the prescribed procedural rigor. The matter was remitted back to the JMFC-II, Bhubaneswar, with specific instructions to conduct a fresh assessment in compliance with Section 175 of the BNSS. Crucially, the Court added that the local Magistrate remains at liberty to address the willful defiance of its orders by the police officials as a separate matter.

This judgment serves as a stern reminder to both the Magistracy and the police that the transition to the BNSS is not merely a change in nomenclature but an evolution toward more granular, procedure-heavy accountability in the administration of criminal justice.