Investigating officer exercises discretionary power to arrest for offences punishable up to seven years.

The petitioner filed an FIR (No. 11191039250708) on 04.10.2025 against several accused, including one Vikas Jaat, for offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The petitioner alleged that the Investigating Officer (IO) failed to arrest the accused, merely issuing a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Subsequently, on 06.10.2025, Vikas Jaat allegedly assaulted the petitioner at court and filed a cross-FIR against the petitioner on 09.10.2025.

The IO eventually filed a charge-sheet against two accused but submitted a ‘C’ Summary report (requesting closure) regarding Vikas Jaat, which the petitioner is currently contesting in the Trial Court.

1. Whether the failure of the Investigating Officer to arrest the accused and the non-recording of reasons for such inaction constitutes a dereliction of duty under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023.

2. Whether the high court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to direct the arrest of the accused after a ‘C’ Summary report has already been submitted to the Trial Court.

Section 35(1) of the BNSS grants discretionary power to an IO to arrest for offenses punishable by up to seven years if satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent further offenses or for proper investigation.

The proviso to Section 35(1) of the BNSS requires the IO to record reasons for not making an arrest, while Section 35(3) permits the issuance of a notice of appearance in cases where an arrest is not required under sub-section (1).

The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 contains specialized procedures regarding the non-entitlement to anticipatory bail.

The Court reasoned that under Section 35(1) of the BNSS, the decision to arrest for offenses carrying a sentence of seven years or less is discretionary and based on the IO's satisfaction of specific criteria.

While the petitioner argued that the IO failed to record reasons for non-arrest, the Court held that such an omission does not automatically render the investigation unfair.

The Court observed that the investigation had already concluded with the filing of a charge-sheet against some individuals and a ‘C’ Summary report for Vikas Jaat.

Since the petitioner has already filed objections to the ‘C’ Summary report before the Trial Court, the judiciary’s role is now at the trial level to examine the adequacy of the investigation before approving the report.

The Court viewed the petition as an attempt to use the judicial process to settle scores following the cross-FIR filed by the accused.

The Court held that the discretion to arrest lies with the IO and that any grievances regarding the investigation or the 'C' Summary report must be adjudicated by the Trial Court where those proceedings are currently pending.