Magistrate Cannot Direct Police To Conduct 'Inquiry' U/S 175(3) BNSS; Must Assess Grounds Before Ordering Probe: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, a Magistrate cannot direct the police to conduct an “inquiry” and must himself undertake such inquiry before ordering investigation. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee clarified that the statutory scheme mandates application of judicial mind, and the expression “inquiry” as defined under the BNSS refers to an exercise to be carried out by a Magistrate or Court, not by the police. Delegating this function to the police—particularly when they have already refused to register an FIR—would be contrary to legislative intent and amount to an abuse of process.The Court explained that Section 175(3), which replaces Section 156(3) CrPC, introduces structured safeguards such as a mandatory affidavit, prior approach to the police hierarchy, and a requirement to consider the police's reasons for refusal. These safeguards, the Court noted, are in line with principles laid down in decisions such as Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, aimed at preventing misuse of criminal process.Importantly, the Court held that before directing investigation, the Magistrate must satisfy a twin test—first, whether the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, and second, whether there exists sufficient ground to proceed with investigation. This requirement is crucial because, while police are bound to register an FIR upon disclosure of a cognizable offence, they are not obligated to investigate unless sufficient grounds exist. Therefore, a Magistrate's direction under Section 175(3) must reflect independent satisfaction on both counts.The Court further clarified that the inquiry contemplated under Section 175(3) is not meant to be a roving or detailed investigation, but a limited judicial exercise to assess whether the statutory conditions are fulfilled. The procedure may vary depending on the facts of each case, but it must remain within the control of the Magistrate and cannot be outsourced. The Magistrate may seek an explanation from the officer-in-charge regarding refusal to register the FIR, even through video conferencing, but must ultimately form his own opinion.The Court found that in all three cases, the Magistrates had mechanically directed the police to conduct an inquiry and submit a report without themselves undertaking the mandatory exercise under Section 175(3). Holding such orders to be legally unsustainable, the Court set them aside and remitted the matters back to the respective Magistrates for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Magistrates were directed to pass reasoned orders within 30 days, uninfluenced by any observations of the High Court.Case: Kaushik Panja & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & AnrCase No: CRR 467 of 2026Click here to read order

Magistrate Cannot Direct Police To Conduct 'Inquiry' U/S 175(3) BNSS; Must Assess Grounds Before Ordering Probe: Calcutta High Court

Srinjoy Das

Tags