Allahabad High Court sets statewide guidelines for magistrates handling complaints against public servants under BNSS

Sheela and Anju applied under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), alleging that police personnel—including Sub-Inspector Rakesh Kumar Yadav and Constable Amit Kumar—entered their home at night, misbehaved with them, and made caste-based remarks.

They sought action under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The allegations arose against the background of a land and money dispute and two cross-cases registered in connection with an earlier incident; Yadav was the investigating officer in both cases.

The Special Judge directed the police to register a case, finding that the application disclosed a cognizable offence.

The accused police personnel appealed, arguing, among other things, that the order did not consider the police report, the cross-cases, or the safeguards in Sections 175(3) and 175(4) BNSS.

1. Whether the Special Judge’s direction to register a case on an application under Section 173(4) BNSS was sustainable without demonstrating compliance with the requirements of Section 175(3), including consideration of the police submission and whether an inquiry was necessary

2. Whether the allegations against police personnel, in light of the circumstances surrounding their official action, required consideration of the additional procedure under Section 175(4) BNSS before directing investigation

3. Whether the impugned order reflected sufficient judicial application of mind to the application, police report, and relevant contemporaneous material

Sections 173(4) and 175(3) BNSS operate sequentially: Section 173(4) provides recourse to the Superintendent of Police and, upon failure of that remedy, an application to the Magistrate; judicial authority to order investigation is exercised under Section 175(3).

That provision requires consideration of the application supported by affidavit, such inquiry as the Magistrate considers necessary, and the police officer’s submission [*Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra*, (2026) 2 SCC 622].

Where a complaint alleges an offence by a public servant arising in the course of official duties, Section 175(4) supplies an additional procedural safeguard: the Magistrate is to obtain a report from a superior officer and consider the public servant’s account of the circumstances, subject to the principles explained in *XXX v. State of Kerala*, (2026) 6 SCC 770.

The Court also relied on the requirement that an order directing investigation must reflect judicial application of mind, as stated in *Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa*, (2013) 10 SCC 705, *Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P.*, (2015) 6 SCC 287, *Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat*, (2015) 6 SCC 439, and *Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka*, (2022) 5 SCC 639.

The Special Judge had called for and received a police report, and the record included cross-cases, General Diary entries, and police action connected with the same dispute.

The High Court held that these matters were relevant to assessing the application and whether the alleged conduct had a nexus with official duties; their existence did not, by itself, establish either the truth or falsity of the complaint.

Because the proposed accused were public servants and the record suggested a factual connection with police proceedings, the Special Judge was required to consider the applicability of Section 175(4), including the superior officer’s report and the public servants’ assertions.

The impugned order did not show that this had been done, nor did it explain whether an inquiry under Section 175(3) was necessary or why it could be dispensed with.

Its general finding that a cognizable offence appeared to have been committed was therefore insufficient to demonstrate the statutory scrutiny and reasoned exercise of discretion required by the BNSS.

The Court did not determine the truth of the allegations.

Consequential proceedings arising solely from that order were also quashed.

The Court issued directions to judicial officers in Uttar Pradesh on compliance with Sections 173(4), 175(3), and 175(4) BNSS, including the need for reasoned orders and careful consideration of police submissions and relevant contemporaneous material.