Complaint against public officials was rightly dismissed where alleged acts bore a reasonable nexus to official duties.

The petitioner, claiming to be the President of Maa Bhuiyani (Banadurga) Trust, Bolagada, filed a complaint alleging that, on 10 September 2025, government officials, accompanied by police personnel, forcibly entered the temple premises without initiating proceedings under the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 or issuing an eviction notice.

He alleged abuse, criminal intimidation, attempted locking of the temple, forcible opening of rooms and a donation box, and removal of cash and other articles without preparing a seizure list or issuing acknowledgment.

The complaint, registered as 1.C.C. No. 60 of 2025, was instituted, inter alia, on the allegation that the police had failed to register an FIR.

After considering the complaint, the initial statement of the complainant, and the materials on record, the learned J.M.F.C. dismissed the complaint on 2 April 2026, holding that the alleged offences were not prima facie made out and that the acts complained of had a reasonable nexus with official duties.

The petitioner challenged that order in the present criminal revision under Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the acts alleged against the public officials had a reasonable nexus with the discharge of their official duties, or were acts committed in a personal capacity or with unlawful intent?

Whether the materials on record disclosed the ingredients of offences under Sections 303(2), 351(2), 61(2) read with Section 3(5), 191, 192 and 201 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?

Whether the order dated 2 April 2026 dismissing the complaint disclosed any infirmity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 442 of the BNSS?

The Court applied Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction.

It considered Section 223(2) of the BNSS in relation to the accused persons’ response to the complaint.

The Court examined the alleged offences under Sections 303(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relating respectively to the alleged dishonest removal of property and criminal intimidation, as well as criminal conspiracy under Section 61(2) read with Section 3(5).

The governing principle applied was that acts having a reasonable nexus with the discharge of official duties cannot, on the materials before the Court, be treated as acts done in a personal capacity or with unlawful intent; revisional interference is justified only where the subordinate court’s order suffers from a material infirmity.

The High Court found that the accused officials had acted pursuant to the Tahasildar’s requisition and related administrative directions for opening a locked room, preparing an inventory, deploying police personnel, and supervising the process.

These circumstances provided a reasonable nexus between the impugned acts and the officials’ public duties.

The Court also relied on the J.M.F.C.’s finding that the allegations of theft of cash, criminal intimidation, abuse, and conspiracy made in the complaint were not reflected in the complainant’s sworn statements.

Consequently, the foundational materials did not establish the ingredients of Sections 303(2), 351(2), or Section 61(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS.

The deployment of police pursuant to an official requisition could not, without supporting material, be characterised as an unlawful assembly, and there was likewise no material to substantiate the offence under Section 201.

Finding no infirmity in the J.M.F.C.’s order dated 2 April 2026, the Court declined to interfere in revisional jurisdiction and disposed of CRLREV No. 312 of 2026.