Magistrate May Seek Police Assistance Under Section 225 BNSS To Probe Complaint Without Ordering FIR: Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court has held that under Section 225 BNSS before issuing process, a Magistrate can–without ordering an FIR, direct a police officer or any other person who he thinks fit to conduct an investigation on a complaint to decide if there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused.The court observed that this investigation under Section 225 BNSS is "an extension of...
Rajasthan High Court has held that under Section 225 BNSS before issuing process, a Magistrate can–without ordering an FIR, direct a police officer or any other person who he thinks fit to conduct an investigation on a complaint to decide if there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused.
The court observed that this investigation under Section 225 BNSS is "an extension of the Magistrate's inquiry" and not a substitute for police investigation under Section 175 BNSS, wherein the purpose of the former is to assist the Magistrate in concluding his inquiry before issuing process.
Section 225, BNSS, provided for postponement of issue of process and scope of investigation at this stage.
It states that a Magistrate, on receiving a "complaint" of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made under section 212, may if he thinks fit, and shall in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction, postpone the issuance of process against the accused.
The Magistrate can either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. In such an inquiry the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath. If the investigation under Section 225(1) is not done by a police officer, then that person–for the purpose of the investigation, shall have all the powers conferred by BNSS on an officer in charge of a police station "except the power to arrest without warrant".
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali further observed that “investigation” used in Section 225 did not mean a "full-fledged police investigation", neither it authorized exercise of coercive powers like arrest or filing of charge sheet. Rather, it led to a discreet report or factual input to aid the Magistrate in forming his opinion for proceeding further.
The Court highlighted that there was a qualitative and fundamental distinction between the investigation contemplated under Section 225 and Section 175, BNSS.
It was opined that while the former was "inquisitorial and preliminary in nature aimed at assisting" the Magistrate for inquiry at pre-process stage, the latter was adversarial in nature directed at collection of legally admissible evidence and consequences flowing from such an investigation are thus grave and far-reaching which may set the criminal law into full motion against the accused.
“The legislative intent is thus clear that the “investigation” under Section 225 operates in a narrow compass, functioning as an ancillary tool in aid of judicial satisfaction, and cannot be equated with, or elevated to, the status of a substantive police investigation that triggers the full rigour of criminal prosecution…It is exploratory and ancillary in nature, and may be conducted not only by a police officer but also by any other person such as a revenue, tax or administrative officer, as deemed fit by the Magistrate...Thus, the investigation under Section 225 BNSS is merely an extension of the Magistrate's inquiry and not a substitute for police investigation under Section 175 BNSS. It is exploratory and ancillary in nature, and may be conducted not only by a police officer but also by any other person such as a revenue, tax or administrative officer, as deemed fit by the Magistrate. The purpose remains confined to assisting the Magistrate in concluding the inquiry”
The court also said that in the course of investigation under Section 175 BNSS, the police may arrest the accused and submit a charge-sheet. However, in proceedings under Section 225 BNSS, no such coercive steps are contemplated wherein the report submitted is only to aid and assist the Magistrate, and the ultimate decision whether to issue process rests solely with the Court upon independent application of mind.
The Court was hearing a petition challenging trial court order on the ground that instead of ordering registration of an FIR pursuant to the complaint, the Magistrate forwarded it the police authority for conducting limited investigation to assist the court in forming an opinion on whether sufficient ground existed to proceed further.
The petitioner argued that his prayer for registration and investigation of the FIR was wrongfully declined, and instead the Magistrate proceeded to examine the complainant under Section 223, BNSS.
After hearing the contentions, the Court opined that the Magistrate's actions were in complete adherence to the process established by law.
While making reference to Section 223, BNSS, the Court opined that Section 223 marked a stage of a preliminary judicial filter where the Magistrate applied judicial mind to ensure that no vexatious and untenable complaints were proceeded with.
Section 223, BNSS, provided that while taking cognizance, the Magistrate shall examine the complainant and the witnesses present, upon oath, and put such substantive examination into writing.
“A significant and progressive departure introduced under the BNSS is the incorporation of a participatory safeguard, whereby the proposed accused is accorded a limited right of hearing at the pre-process stage. This innovation seeks to infuse procedural fairness and to prevent mechanical issuance of process without due application of mind, thereby strengthening the balance between the rights of the complainant and the proposed accused. “
The Court clarified that prior to proceeding under Section 225, Magistrate was ordinarily required to comply with Section 223, and held that Section 223, BNSS, was not a mere formality but a substantive safeguard and preliminary judicial filter that enabled the Magistrate to test the veracity of the complainant's version and facilitated exercise of discretion at the subsequent stage.
In this background, the Court observed that in the present matter, the Magistrate had examined the complainant under Section 223, and after noticing absence of supporting material, had decided to invoke Section 225 to take police's assistance in arriving at a conclusion.
“The law does not mandate that every complaint must culminate in such direction. The choice of procedure, whether to proceed under the complaint mechanism or to direct investigation, is vested in the sound judicial discretion of the Magistrate, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case.”
The Court held that such act reflected judicial prudence and due application of mind.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Title: Jogendra Pal v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 141