Magistrates must consider police submissions before ordering an investigation under BNSS, MP High Court rules

In connection with a 2019 recruitment for Superintendent at the Super Speciality Hospital, Gwalior, respondent No. 1 alleged that Dr. Gupta had used forged experience certificates purportedly issued by Max Super Speciality Hospital to obtain the appointment.

After alleging that the police had not acted on his complaints, respondent No. 1 applied under Section 175(3) of the BNSS for an order directing registration of an FIR.

The Magistrate allowed the application on 15 July 2026; the revisional court dismissed Dr. Gupta’s challenge on 19 August 2026.

Dr. Gupta then sought to set aside both orders under Section 528 of the BNSS.

1. Whether the Magistrate exercised jurisdiction under Section 175(3) of the BNSS in accordance with its statutory requirements and applicable precedents.

2. Whether the failure to obtain and consider the concerned police officer’s submissions, after calling for a police report, affected the legality of the order directing investigation.

3. Whether the material before the Magistrate sufficiently supported an order for investigation, particularly given the dispute over Dr. Gupta’s connection to the alleged certificates.

4. Whether the revisional court adequately examined the legality, correctness and propriety of the Magistrate’s order.

Section 528 of the BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, including where a subordinate court’s order contains material procedural illegality.

Under Section 175(3), an application for police investigation must satisfy the statutory requirements, including the prescribed application and affidavit; the Magistrate may conduct such inquiry as considered necessary and must consider the police officer’s submissions before directing investigation.

Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 139, holds that the Magistrate must apply judicial mind to the application and police submissions and cannot act mechanically.

Where an accusation against a public servant arises in the course of official duties, Section 175(4) requires a report from an officer superior to that public servant and consideration of the public servant’s assertions; its application depends on the nature of the accusation and its connection to official duties.

Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 287, underscores the need for procedural discipline and an affidavit in applications seeking investigation.

The High Court did not determine whether the certificates were forged or whether Dr. Gupta submitted them.

It found that the Magistrate’s order did not demonstrate that the police officer’s submissions had been obtained and considered, despite the Magistrate having called for a police report; the later assertion that a status report had been filed did not establish that its contents or the statutory requirements had been judicially considered.

The Magistrate also failed to adequately examine whether Section 175(4) applied to the allegation concerning certificates allegedly used to secure public employment.

Further, the disputed connection between the certificates and Dr. Gupta required assessment of whether the complaint disclosed a prima facie factual basis for investigation; it could not simply be deferred as a matter for investigation.

The revisional court’s approach of relegating the objections to investigation or trial failed to address whether the statutory preconditions for ordering that investigation had been met.

It allowed the petition, set aside both the Magistrate’s order dated 15 July 2026 and the revisional order dated 19 August 2026, and quashed the direction to register an FIR and investigate.

The Court clarified that its decision did not determine the genuineness of the certificates or the truth of the allegations.