Magistrate’s Discretion to Treat Section 175(3) BNSS Application as Complaint Case Where Police Investigation is Unnecessary

The applicant, a 22-year-old woman, alleged that on December 25, 2025, she was ambushed, molested, and beaten by Opposite Parties No. 2 to 5 in a sugarcane field.

Despite applications to the police and senior officials, no FIR was lodged nor was a medical examination conducted.

The applicant subsequently moved an application under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Gonda.

On March 20, 2026, the CJM treated the application as a complaint case rather than directing the police to register an FIR, citing that the applicant had personal knowledge of the facts.

The applicant challenged this order before the High Court under Section 528 BNSS.

Section 175(3) of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Sec 156(3) Cr.P.C.) regarding the Magistrate’s power to order an investigation.

Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., which mandates FIR registration by police under Section 154 Cr.P.C. for cognizable offences.

Sukhwasi v. State of U.P., establishing that a Magistrate is not bound to order an FIR and may treat the application as a complaint.

XYZ v. State of Madhya Pradesh, emphasizing sensitive handling of sexual assault cases where evidence (like CCTV) is inaccessible to the victim.

Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra, which clarifies that the Magistrate should direct police investigation only when the assistance of a state agency is necessary to unearth complex evidence.

The Court reasoned that while Lalita Kumari creates a statutory duty for the police to register an FIR, it does not limit the judicial discretion of a Magistrate under the Code.

A Magistrate has two distinct options: direct an investigation under Section 175(3) (pre-cognizance) or take cognizance and proceed under the complaint procedure (Section 223 BNSS/Sec 200 Cr.P.C.).

The requirement for a police investigation arises primarily when the complainant lacks access to evidence (e.g., CCTV footage, unknown accused, or complex technical data).

In the present case, the Court found the allegations to be straightforward and the material facts to be within the personal knowledge of the applicant and her witnesses.

Since no complex investigation involving the "expertise of the State machinery" was deemed necessary to unearth the truth, the CJM’s decision to follow the complaint procedure was a valid exercise of judicial discretion.

The application under Section 528 BNSS was rejected, as the High Court found no illegality in the CJM’s order treating the matter as a complaint case.

The Court directed the Registrar General to circulate the judgment to all subordinate courts in Uttar Pradesh for guidance on the exercise of discretionary powers under Section 175(3) BNSS.