The Supreme Court's decision inOm Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.(Criminal Appeal No. 352/2020, 16 January, 2025) offers critical insight into magistrates' discretionary powers under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and its successor, Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The court strongly criticized the routine practice of ordering police investigations under Section 156(3) CrPC without careful judicial consideration. Magistrates were cautioned against automatically forwarding complaints and urged to determine if a police investigation was truly necessary before issuing an order. This ruling underscores the judiciary's concern about the misuse of magisterial discretion, emphasizing that judicial processes should not be mere formalities.

The Supreme Court clarified that magistrates should only direct police investigations when necessary to achieve justice and when the case's complexity warrants police action. If allegations are straightforward, allowing the court to proceed with evidence recording and a trial, an FIR should not be automatically registered under Section 156(3) CrPC. This distinction ensures efficient allocation of police resources, avoiding unnecessary criminalization of disputes that do not require state intervention. By emphasizing judicial scrutiny, this ruling seeks to balance the criminal justice system by preventing the arbitrary use of magisterial power.

Section 175(3) of the BNSS introduces several safeguards not found in Section 156(3) of the CrPC. A key change is the requirement that applicants first approach the Superintendent of Police (SP) - in police commissionerate area the zonal deputy commissioner of police or the commissioner of police may be approached - before seeking a magistrate's order. This aims to filter out frivolous complaints and allows the police to assess and act on complaints before judicial intervention. Furthermore, applications under Section 175(3) of the BNSS must include a copy of the complaint submitted to the SP/DCP/CP, along with an affidavit. This promotes greater accountability and prevents complainants from bypassing police in minor matters.

Another significant change in the BNSS is the magistrate's power to conduct a preliminary inquiry before ordering FIR registration. This enables magistrates to evaluate the merits of a case, reducing the likelihood of baseless allegations triggering unwarranted police investigations. Additionally, the BNSS mandates magistrates to consider the reasons a police officer provides for refusing to register an FIR before making a decision. This enhances transparency and ensures consideration of the police perspective, creating a more balanced process.

While these reforms aim to prevent the misuse of magisterial powers and protect public officials from frivolous FIRs, they may also create obstacles for genuine complainants. Victims of police inaction may find it more difficult to seek justice due to the additional procedures. If both the police and the Superintendent of Police/Divisional Deputy Commissioner of Police/Commissioner of Police reject a complaint, the complainant has limited recourse. The magistrate's inquiry process could further delay matters, undermining the goal of swift justice.

Moreover, magistrates' discretionary power to conduct a preliminary inquiry before directing FIR registration could lead to inconsistencies in judicial decisions. Differing approaches among magistrates could create unpredictability in applying the law. This is particularly concerning in urgent or sensitive cases, where delays in FIR registration could compromise evidence or the complainant's safety.

Another concern involves the impact of these changes on cases concerning public servants. Section 174(4) of the BNSS introduces additional safeguards for FIR registration against government officials, requiring a report from their superior officer detailing the incident. While this aims to prevent false allegations against officials, it risks creating a protective barrier that makes it difficult to hold public servants accountable for misconduct. This raises questions about balancing protection from false allegations and ensuring accountability for genuine wrongdoing.

Despite these concerns, the overall goal of the BNSS modifications seems to be a more structured and accountable system for registering FIRs. By codifying procedural safeguards, the BNSS aims to prevent arbitrary use of magisterial power and encourage a reasoned approach in judicial decision-making. The requirement for magistrates to issue reasoned orders ensures every FIR registration is based on a careful examination of facts and law, reducing instances of misuse.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's ruling emphasizes judicial prudence in ordering police investigations and the importance of due process in criminal proceedings. The BNSS reforms address concerns about arbitrary FIR registrations and judicial accountability. However, their practical implementation will determine whether they improve justice delivery or create unnecessary hurdles. These provisions must be applied in a manner that balances efficiency, accountability, and access to justice, ensuring legal safeguards do not become barriers for victims seeking redress.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: imranwahab216@gmail.com, Ph no: 9836576565