In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court addressed the procedural requirements for magistrates when ordering investigations against public servants under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The court emphasized that such orders must adhere to the safeguards outlined in Section 175(4) of the BNSS, ensuring a balanced approach that protects the rights of public servants while upholding the integrity of the investigative process.
Background of the Case
The case involved a petitioner and his wife who alleged they were victims of fraud, forgery, and cheating amounting to ₹6.2 crores. They had approached the Infocity Police Station, leading to the registration of two FIRs against certain individuals. During the ongoing investigations, the then Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) in Bhubaneswar allegedly attempted to influence the petitioners by pressuring them to withdraw the cases and reach a compromise with the accused. When the petitioners resisted these overtures, they claimed to have been subjected to unlawful detention, physical and mental torture, and threats by police officials, including Additional DCPs, Inspectors In-Charge (IICs), and Sub-Inspectors (SIs), under the direction of the DCP.
Despite multiple complaints to the IIC, DCP, and Police Commissioner, the petitioners alleged that no FIR was registered. Consequently, they filed two e-FIRs and sent written complaints to the IIC and DCP, but received no response. Frustrated by the inaction, the petitioners approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) II in Bhubaneswar with a complaint. The JMFC, after reviewing the matter, directed the concerned IIC to register an FIR and conduct an investigation. However, the petitioners contended that the investigation was not initiated, prompting them to seek intervention from the High Court.
Legal Framework
Section 175(4) of the BNSS stipulates that a magistrate can order an investigation against a public servant only after:
Receiving a report containing the facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to the public servant.
Considering the assertions made by the public servant regarding the situation that led to the alleged incident.
This provision aims to provide safeguards against arbitrary investigations, ensuring that public servants are not subjected to unwarranted probes without due process.
Court's Analysis
Justice Gourishankar Satapathy, in his judgment, highlighted the procedural lapses in the JMFC's order directing the investigation. The court noted that the magistrate failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 175(4) of the BNSS. Specifically, the magistrate did not obtain a report from the superior officer of the police officials named in the complaint, nor did he consider the assertions made by the public servants concerning the alleged incident.
The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., which analyzed the contours of Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and its corresponding provision under Section 175(3) of the BNSS. The Supreme Court had emphasized the following changes introduced by the BNSS:
Mandatory Application to Superintendent of Police (SP): The requirement for an applicant to approach the SP upon refusal by the officer in charge of a police station to lodge an FIR has been made mandatory. The applicant must furnish a copy of the application made to the SP, supported by an affidavit, when approaching the magistrate under Section 175(3).
Magistrate's Discretion: The magistrate is empowered to conduct such inquiry as he deems necessary before directing the registration of an FIR.
Consideration of Police Officer's Submissions: The magistrate must consider the submissions of the officer in charge of the police station regarding the refusal to register an FIR before issuing any directions under Section 175(3).
The Supreme Court underscored that these changes were introduced to adapt to procedural practices and safeguards aimed at curbing the misuse of magistrate powers by unscrupulous litigants. The court further noted that mandating the magistrate to consider the submissions of the concerned police officer ensures that the magistrate applies his mind judicially, thereby ensuring compliance with the requirement of passing reasoned orders.
In light of these precedents, Justice Satapathy observed that the JMFC's order lacked the necessary procedural safeguards. The magistrate did not seek a report from the superior officer of the accused police officials, nor did he consider their assertions regarding the alleged incident. This oversight rendered the order procedurally defective and susceptible to jurisdictional error.
Conclusion
The Orissa High Court concluded that the JMFC's order directing the investigation was flawed due to non-compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 175(4) of the BNSS. The court set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the concerned court for a fresh decision, ensuring adherence to the prescribed procedures. This judgment reinforces the importance of following due process when ordering investigations against public servants, thereby upholding the principles of fairness and justice.
This decision serves as a crucial reminder of the procedural safeguards in place to protect public servants from arbitrary investigations, ensuring that any probe is conducted with due diligence and in accordance with the law.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.