Interpretation of Section 175(4) BNSS: Court Clarifies Judicial Procedure

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment concerning the interpretation of Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). This ruling arose from a criminal appeal challenging the reversal of a Single Judge's order by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. The case involved serious allegations against police officers, raising critical questions about the procedural safeguards applicable when public servants are accused of crimes in the discharge of their official duties.

Case Background

The appellant in this case alleged that she was sexually assaulted by police officers while pursuing a property dispute. Following her complaints, the police conducted a preliminary inquiry, which concluded that her allegations were untrue. After a change in the police leadership, the appellant sought to register a First Information Report (FIR) against the accused officers. The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) called for a report from the Deputy Inspector General of Police, but the matter was complicated by the appellant's subsequent writ petition in the High Court.

The Single Judge of the High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that compliance with Section 175(4) was not mandatory for registering an FIR in cases of sexual assault. However, this decision was challenged by the accused officers, leading to the Division Bench's reversal of the Single Judge's order, which prompted the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court.

What The Lower Authorities Held

The Single Judge of the High Court initially allowed the appellant's writ petition, asserting that the alleged acts of sexual assault could not be considered as being in the discharge of official duties. The Division Bench, however, found that the Single Judge had exceeded his jurisdiction by intervening in a matter that was still pending before the JMFC. The Division Bench emphasized that the JMFC's order to call for a report was a judicial order that could not be challenged through a writ petition.

The Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court, led by Justice Dipankar Datta, undertook a detailed examination of the interplay between sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 175 of the BNSS. The Court concluded that Section 175(4) is not an independent provision but rather a procedural safeguard that must be read in conjunction with Section 175(3). The Court emphasized that the requirement for an affidavit in complaints against public servants is crucial to prevent frivolous allegations and to ensure that the judicial process is not misused.

The Court noted that the legislative intent behind Section 175(4) is to provide additional protection to public servants accused of crimes in the course of their official duties. This provision mandates that a judicial magistrate must call for a report from the superior officer of the accused public servant and consider the assertions made by the public servant before ordering an investigation. The Court highlighted that the use of the word 'may' in Section 175(4) indicates that the magistrate has discretion in deciding whether to order an investigation, but this discretion must be exercised in accordance with the procedural safeguards outlined in the BNSS.

Statutory Interpretation

The Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 175(4) involved a careful analysis of the legislative framework established by the BNSS. The Court clarified that the requirement for an affidavit in complaints against public servants is not merely a procedural formality but a necessary safeguard to prevent the misuse of the judicial process. The Court emphasized that allowing oral complaints without an affidavit could lead to a situation where public servants are subjected to baseless allegations, undermining their ability to perform their duties effectively.

The Court also addressed the relationship between Sections 173 and 175 of the BNSS, noting that these provisions must be read together to understand the procedural requirements for registering an FIR against public servants. The Court concluded that the safeguards in Section 175(4) are designed to protect public servants from frivolous complaints while ensuring that genuine allegations are not ignored.

Why This Judgment Matters

This ruling is significant for legal practice as it clarifies the procedural requirements for registering FIRs against public servants under the BNSS. The decision reinforces the principles established in Lalita Kumari regarding the mandatory registration of FIRs in cases where cognizable offences are disclosed. It also highlights the importance of balancing the need for accountability in public service with the protection of public servants from false allegations.

The judgment serves as a guide for judicial magistrates in handling complaints against public servants, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the circumstances surrounding the allegations. It underscores the necessity of adhering to procedural safeguards to prevent the misuse of the judicial process and to ensure that justice is served.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's order, emphasizing that the Single Judge had exceeded his jurisdiction by interpreting Section 175(4) in a manner that was not warranted by the facts of the case. The Court directed that the JMFC must ensure that any application under Section 175(3) is accompanied by an affidavit, thereby reinforcing the procedural safeguards intended by the legislature.

Case Details

• Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala & Ors.
• Citation: 2026 INSC 88
• Court: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
• Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Manmohan
• Date of Judgment: 2026-01-27