Under Section 175(3) BNSS, Magistrate must consider the police status report before directing investigation.

The petitioner/complainant filed a complaint before Police Station University, Gwalior, alleging that the respondents and other persons had committed cognizable offences, including threats, abuse, intimidation, conspiracy concerning her father’s death, and surveillance by masked persons.

She alleged that neither the police nor the Superintendent of Police took effective action and consequently approached the Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC/Section 175(3) BNSS, seeking registration of offences under Sections 302, 307, 384, 506, 341, 120-B and 34 IPC.

The Magistrate called for a police status report and granted repeated opportunities between 20 March 2025 and 29 July 2025.

The Station House Officer subsequently sought further time on 26 July 2025, but the report was not placed before the Magistrate.

On 5 August 2025, the Magistrate directed the police to investigate the complaint and submit a final report.

Two proposed accused challenged that order in revision.

On 8 October 2025, the Sessions Court set aside the Magistrate’s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after obtaining and considering the police report and accompanying documents.

The petitioner thereafter invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS seeking restoration of the Magistrate’s order.

1. Whether the revisional Court was justified in setting aside the Magistrate’s order directing investigation and remanding the matter for consideration of the police report/status report under Section 175(3) BNSS?

2. Whether the High Court should interfere under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS with the revisional Court’s order?

3. Whether the criminal revision against the Magistrate’s order was maintainable, notwithstanding the petitioner’s contention that the order was interlocutory?

Section 175(3) BNSS, corresponding to the former Section 156(3) CrPC, empowers the Magistrate to direct investigation but requires an exercise of judicial mind on the complaint and the relevant material before the Court.

At this stage, the Magistrate need not conduct a mini-trial or undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence; however, where a police report or status report has been called for, the police response and accompanying material are relevant considerations.

The Magistrate is not bound by the conclusion reached in the police report, but must consider it before passing an appropriate order.

The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS is to be exercised sparingly and only where there is patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, abuse of process, or miscarriage of justice; it cannot be invoked merely because another view is possible.

The Court declined to decide conclusively the issue of revisional maintainability because the remand order caused no irreversible prejudice to the petitioner.

The Magistrate had itself called for a police report and granted repeated opportunities to the police, while the Station House Officer had sought additional time, indicating that the complaint was already under police examination.

In those circumstances, the Magistrate was required to consider the police response and any material collected before directing further investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS.

The Magistrate’s finding that the allegations disclosed cognizable offences did not dispense with this procedural requirement.

The Sessions Court’s remand did not reject the complaint or bind the Magistrate to accept the police version; it merely required consideration of the report and relevant documents before a fresh decision.

Since this approach disclosed no patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error, the High Court found no basis to exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS.

The petition under Section 528 BNSS was therefore dismissed.

The Magistrate was directed to proceed in accordance with law and pass an appropriate order afresh, uninfluenced by observations of the Sessions Court or the High Court.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations or on whether any cognizable offence was ultimately made out.