A Magistrate may direct police investigation without prior inquiry when the complaint pleads police refusal.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly and attempted to enter his institution’s office on 13 March 2025, followed by an altercation and physical assault.

He claimed that the police and Deputy Superintendent of Police did not act on his complaint, and therefore filed a private complaint under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), supported by an affidavit.

The Magistrate referred the complaint to the police for registration and investigation, leading to Crime No. 186/2026 under Sections 331(5), 324(4), 352, 115 and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The petitioners, who were named as accused, sought to quash the complaint and challenged the registration of the FIR, arguing that the Magistrate had acted mechanically and failed to consider an earlier complaint by Petitioner No. 1, registered as Crime No. 62/2025.

1. Whether the Magistrate’s referral of the private complaint to the police for registration and investigation, under Section 223 BNSS, warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. Whether the existence of the earlier complaint registered as Crime No. 62/2025 rendered the registration of the present case unlawful or otherwise justified quashing it.

The Court considered Section 223 BNSS, under which the complainant had approached the Magistrate by private complaint, and Article 226 of the Constitution, under which the petitioners sought writ relief.

It also noted the BNS provisions under which the police had registered the case.

The Court’s stated principle was that, where a complaint specifically alleges prior unsuccessful attempts to obtain police action and is supported by an affidavit, the Magistrate’s referral of the matter to the police for registration and investigation is not, on that basis, shown to be illegal or perverse.

An earlier complaint by an accused is a relevant matter for the police to consider during investigation, but does not by itself establish that the present FIR must be quashed.

The Court found that the private complaint was supported by an affidavit and specifically recorded that the complainant had approached both the police station and the Deputy Superintendent of Police without obtaining action.

In those circumstances, it held that the Magistrate’s decision to refer the matter to the police could not be faulted merely because the Magistrate did not first make a further inquiry into the complaint’s contents.

The earlier case initiated by Petitioner No. 1 did not establish illegality in the present referral; instead, the police were required to investigate both matters and submit appropriate reports in accordance with law.

The challenge was therefore premature, as the petitioners had not shown that the referral suffered from illegality or perversity warranting writ interference.

It left the police to investigate the present case and the earlier Crime No. 62/2025 and to file appropriate reports in accordance with law.