Madras HC Remands Man’s FIR Plea After Magistrate Overlooked Copies Of Complaints He Sent To Police And SP

The petitioner applied under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), asking the Magistrate to direct registration of a case against respondents 1 and 2.

The Magistrate dismissed the application, finding that the petitioner had not complained to the jurisdictional police station or produced proof of sending a complaint to the Superintendent of Police.

In revision, the petitioner argued that copies of both complaints had been filed; the State conceded that they were among the documents submitted with the application. The Magistrate’s order itself listed those complaints among the petitioner’s documents.

Section 175(3) BNSS provides the procedural basis for an application to a Magistrate seeking an order for investigation.

The revision was brought under Section 438 BNSS.

The Court also stated that, where the representation to the Superintendent of Police refers to an earlier complaint to the jurisdictional police station, separate proof of “lodging” that earlier complaint need not necessarily be required.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The Magistrate dismissed the application on the basis that the petitioner had not made or proved the required complaints. However, the Magistrate’s own list of documents recorded that copies of both complaints had been filed, and the State confirmed this before the High Court.

The Court therefore found that the dismissal rested on a failure to consider the record and was made without applying judicial mind, rendering it erroneous and perverse. It further observed that proof of lodging the earlier police complaint need not necessarily be demanded where the Superintendent of Police representation referred to it.

It directed the Magistrate to complete the exercise within two months from receipt of the order. The Court did not itself direct registration of an FIR.