Mandatory Compliance with Sections 173(4), 175(3), and 175(4) BNSS: A Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to order police investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS unless the complaint is supported by a sworn affidavit demonstrating prior exhaustion of remedies under Sections 173(1) and 173(4) BNSS, the submissions of the police officer are taken into account, and reasoned judicial application of mind is evident from the order. Statutory Immunity and Threshold for Public Servants: Under Section 175(4) BNSS, no investigation can be ordered against a public servant acting in the discharge of official duties without first securing a fact-finding report from their superior officer and considering the written assertions/explanation of the accused public servant.

  

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Between vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 January, 2026

    APHC010473892025

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(3) [corresponding to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.] read with Section 173(4) [corresponding to Section 154(3) Cr.P.C.] — Pre-requisites for ordering investigation upon private complaint:

  Section 175(3) BNSS statutorily codifies the procedural safeguards laid down in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. An order directing police investigation cannot be passed mechanically. The Magistrate must satisfy themselves that the complainant has exhausted remedies under Section 173(1) and Section 173(4) BNSS (lodging report at the police station and subsequent application to the Superintendent of Police). The application under Section 175(3) BNSS must be supported by a sworn affidavit, the Magistrate may conduct such inquiry as deemed necessary, and must consider any submissions made by the concerned police officer before ordering an investigation.

  (Paras 10–15, 20, 22, 26)

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Statutory safeguards for public servants — Mandatory pre-conditions:

  Where a complaint alleges commission of a cognizable offence by a public servant arising in the course of the discharge of official duties, Section 175(4) BNSS imposes a strict statutory bar. The Magistrate cannot direct an investigation without:

  1. Receiving a report containing the facts and circumstances of the incident from an officer superior to the public servant; and

  2. Considering the assertions/explanation made by the public servant regarding the circumstances leading to the alleged incident.

     An order directing investigation without adhering to these twin mandatory conditions is illegal and void.

     (Paras 16, 23, 26)

• Criminal Procedure — Duties of Magistrates under Section 175(3) BNSS — Judicial mind vs. Mechanical referral:

  Magistrates cannot act as mere conduits, passive transmitters, or "post offices" by passing cryptic orders directing police to "register and investigate." Passing an order directing investigation entails serious consequences and requires reasoned, judicious exercise of discretion. Where allegations are straightforward and can be resolved through sworn statements/evidence, the Magistrate ought to follow the complaint case procedure rather than routinely referring the matter for police investigation.

  (Paras 17–22, 24, 26)

• Conduct of Litigants — Counter-affidavits and party-in-person decorum:

  Litigants, including parties appearing in person, have no license to make scandalous, vague, or intimidating remarks against judicial officers or the courts. Emotional distress cannot excuse undermining judicial discipline and decorum. Statutory appellate and revisional remedies exist to correct erroneous judicial orders, and the Registry must exercise due diligence in screening party-in-person appearances.

  (Para 25)

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Mandatory Compliance with Sections 173(4), 175(3), and 175(4) BNSS: A Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to order police investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS unless the complaint is supported by a sworn affidavit demonstrating prior exhaustion of remedies under Sections 173(1) and 173(4) BNSS, the submissions of the police officer are taken into account, and reasoned judicial application of mind is evident from the order.

2. Statutory Immunity and Threshold for Public Servants: Under Section 175(4) BNSS, no investigation can be ordered against a public servant acting in the discharge of official duties without first securing a fact-finding report from their superior officer and considering the written assertions/explanation of the accused public servant.

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

1. Facts & Procedural History

• Incident & Allegations: Respondent No. 2 (complainant) alleged that on 15.01.2023, the Petitioner (a Sub-Inspector of Police) along with others abused her using caste-based slurs and threatened her family following her father's refusal to surrender assigned land under a housing scheme.

• Petitioner's Defense: The Petitioner served at the concerned police station only until 27.01.2022 and was not posted there on the alleged date of incident (15.01.2023). The complaint was lodged after an unexplained delay of over two years (first filed with police on 10.02.2025 and before the Magistrate on 11.02.2025). Respondent No. 2 was also cited as a habitual litigant with multiple prior FIRs.

• Magistrate's Order (26.07.2025): The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuramu, in C.F. No. 277 of 2025, forwarded the private complaint under Section 175(3) BNSS with a one-sentence administrative directive instructing the SHO, II Town P.S., Anantapuramu, to "investigate the matter and submit the report."

• High Court Challenge: The Petitioner approached the High Court under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) to quash the referral proceedings.

2. Legal Scrutiny by the High Court

• Total Absence of Reasons & Judicial Mind: The High Court observed that the Magistrate acted as a mere conduit/post office. The Magistrate merely forwarded the complaint based on a photocopy of a medical certificate without passing a speaking order, evaluating the prima facie veracity of the delay, or conducting any preliminary inquiry.

• Violation of Section 173(4) & Section 175(3) BNSS Requirements: The complainant did not satisfy the mandatory criteria established in Priyanka Srivastava (now statutorily codified under BNSS), nor did the Magistrate examine whether proper representations under Section 173(1) and 173(4) were made with supporting affidavits, nor were submissions from the police officer obtained.

• Failure to Comply with Section 175(4) BNSS: The Petitioner was a serving Sub-Inspector of Police. The Magistrate completely bypassed the mandatory safeguards in Section 175(4) BNSS by failing to call for a report from the Petitioner's superior officer or obtaining the Petitioner’s version of the incident before ordering an investigation.

• Scandalous Allegations by Party-in-Person: The High Court took strong exception to derogatory pleadings made by Respondent No. 2 against the Magistrate in her counter-affidavit, reminding that litigants cannot scandalize the court or intimidate judicial officers merely because an order is perceived as adverse.

Conclusion & Outcome:

The High Court allowed Criminal Petition No. 9676 of 2025, quashed the cryptic referral order dated 26.07.2025, and remanded the complaint back to the Magistrate for fresh consideration in accordance with the mandatory procedures under Section 175(3) and Section 175(4) BNSS. The Court also directed the circulation of the judgment to all judicial officers in Andhra Pradesh and the State Judicial Academy for sensitization on the application of the newly enacted criminal procedural framework.