Introduction:
In Prashant Kaushik & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., the Rajasthan High Court, presided over by Justice Farjand Ali, delivered a significant ruling clarifying the interplay between Section 175(3) and Section 223(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The case arose from a revision petition filed by police officials challenging an order passed by a Special Court under the SC/ST Act, which had directed the registration of an FIR against them. The controversy centered on whether a Magistrate can, in a routine or mechanical manner, invoke powers under Section 175(3) BNSS to direct registration of an FIR against public servants for acts allegedly committed in discharge of official duties, without first complying with the statutory safeguards provided under Section 223(2). The High Court was thus called upon to examine the scope and limits of judicial discretion at the pre-cognizance stage, and to determine whether procedural safeguards designed to protect public servants could be bypassed under the guise of initiating investigation. The judgment is a crucial exposition on the need to balance the right of a complainant to seek redressal with the necessity of protecting public officials from frivolous and retaliatory litigation.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioners, who were police officials, challenged the order of the Special Judge primarily on the ground that it was passed in a mechanical and non-speaking manner, without due application of mind. It was contended that the allegations made against them pertained to acts carried out in the discharge of their official duties, and therefore, the mandatory safeguards under Section 223(2) BNSS were clearly attracted. The petitioners argued that the Magistrate had failed to provide them with an opportunity to explain the circumstances surrounding the alleged incident, nor had any report been obtained from their superior officers, as required by law. This omission, according to the petitioners, rendered the order legally unsustainable.
The petitioners further submitted that the complaint filed against them was not a bona fide grievance but rather a retaliatory action arising out of prior criminal proceedings. It was pointed out that an FIR had earlier been registered against the respondent for offences such as causing hurt and wrongful restraint, and that the respondent had subsequently lodged a counter FIR against the petitioners. However, this counter FIR had culminated in a negative final report, with observations indicating that it was filed with an oblique motive. In light of this background, the petitioners argued that the subsequent criminal complaint was a continuation of the same retaliatory attempt to harass them and derail the investigation.
It was also emphasized that allegations of abuse or use of force against police officials, particularly when made in the context of ongoing or recent investigations, must be scrutinized with caution. The petitioners contended that such allegations are often easy to make but difficult to verify, and therefore, cannot be accepted at face value without preliminary judicial scrutiny. They argued that the determination of whether the alleged acts fall within the scope of official duty is a complex and fact-intensive inquiry, which requires careful evaluation rather than mechanical acceptance.
On the other hand, the respondent-complainant argued that the allegations made in the complaint were serious and warranted immediate investigation. It was contended that the Special Judge had rightly exercised powers under Section 175(3) BNSS to direct registration of an FIR, as the complaint disclosed cognizable offences. The respondent maintained that the Magistrate is empowered to order investigation where the facts of the case so demand, and that such power should not be curtailed by procedural technicalities.
The respondent also submitted that the existence of prior litigation or cross FIRs does not automatically render a complaint false or motivated. According to the respondent, the allegations of abuse and use of force by the police officials were genuine and deserved to be investigated in accordance with law. It was argued that denying registration of an FIR in such cases would amount to shielding public servants from accountability and would undermine the rule of law.
Court’s Judgment:
The Rajasthan High Court, after a comprehensive analysis of the statutory framework and the facts of the case, set aside the order of the Special Court and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. Justice Farjand Ali delivered a detailed judgment emphasizing that the power under Section 175(3) BNSS cannot be exercised in a casual, mechanical, or routine manner, particularly in cases involving public servants.
At the outset, the Court clarified the legal position regarding the stage of cognizance. It acknowledged that strictly speaking, a Magistrate does not take cognizance while directing registration of an FIR under Section 175(3). However, the Court rejected the notion that this distinction permits unrestrained exercise of power. It held that even at the stage of considering whether to direct investigation, the Magistrate is required to apply judicial mind to the contents of the complaint. This evaluative exercise, the Court observed, constitutes a preparatory stage akin to taking cognizance, thereby attracting the safeguards envisaged under Section 223.
The Court gave an expansive interpretation to the expression “while taking cognizance” used in Section 223, holding that it includes not only the final act of cognizance but also the preceding stages where the Magistrate assesses the complaint. This interpretation, according to the Court, is necessary to give meaningful effect to the legislative intent behind Section 223, which is to protect public servants from frivolous and vexatious prosecution.
Justice Ali emphasized that Section 223(2) BNSS is not an empty formality but a substantive safeguard. The provision mandates that before taking cognizance of a complaint against a public servant for acts purportedly committed in discharge of official duties, the Magistrate must afford an opportunity to the public servant to explain the circumstances and must obtain a report from the superior officer. These requirements, the Court held, serve as a judicial filter to prevent misuse of criminal law as a tool of vendetta.
The Court was particularly critical of the approach adopted by the Special Judge, describing the impugned order as non-speaking and mechanical. It noted that the Magistrate had failed to engage with the contents of the complaint and had not considered whether the allegations attracted the safeguards under Section 223(2). A bare reading of the complaint, the Court observed, would have revealed that the allegations were directed against police officials in relation to their official duties, thereby necessitating compliance with the statutory framework.
The Court also took into account the broader factual background, including the existence of cross FIRs and prior litigation between the parties. It noted that the respondent had been named as an accused in an earlier FIR, and that his own FIR had resulted in a negative final report with observations suggesting retaliatory intent. In such circumstances, the Court held that allegations against police officials must be approached with caution, as they are susceptible to being motivated by personal vendetta.
Importantly, the Court clarified that its decision should not be construed as dismissing the complainant’s grievance. Instead, it emphasized the need for a balanced approach that protects both the rights of the complainant and the interests of public servants. The Court reiterated that while genuine complaints must be addressed, safeguards cannot be ignored, as they are integral to ensuring fairness and preventing abuse of process.
The judgment underscores that the process of taking cognizance under the BNSS is no longer an instantaneous act but a calibrated judicial exercise requiring structured application of mind. The Magistrate must carefully analyze the complaint, consider the context, and determine whether the case falls within the scope of Section 175(3) or requires adherence to the procedure under Section 223.
In conclusion, the Court set aside the order directing registration of FIR and remanded the matter to the lower court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. It directed that the Magistrate must re-examine the complaint with due regard to the statutory safeguards and pass a reasoned order after proper application of mind.