The Supreme Court has drawn a firm procedural line on how complaints against public servants are to be brought under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). A Magistrate, the Court said, cannot entertain a complaint under Section 175(4) unless the complainant first satisfies the conditions laid down in Section 175(3).
At the heart of the ruling is a simple but consequential requirement: before seeking judicial intervention, the complainant must have already approached the Superintendent of Police with a written complaint supported by a sworn affidavit. Only after this step fails can the Magistrate’s jurisdiction be invoked.
The Bench rejected the argument that Section 175(4) operates on its own, capable of triggering action even on an oral complaint. Instead, it held that sub-section (4) is inseparable from sub-section (3) and must be read alongside it. This interpretation imports the procedural safeguards recognised earlier in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., including the affidavit requirement.
According to the Court, the BNSS establishes a clear statutory sequence. An aggrieved person alleging police inaction must first approach the Superintendent of Police. If that avenue does not yield results, the Magistrate may be moved—but only through an application backed by an affidavit confirming that the prior step was taken.
Treating Section 175(4) as a standalone provision, the Court warned, would upset this carefully designed hierarchy. It would allow complainants to sidestep the supervisory role of senior police officers and directly approach a Magistrate without the discipline of a sworn statement. Such an outcome, the Bench noted, would be anomalous and contrary to legislative intent.
The Court emphasised that the word “complaint” in Section 175(4) cannot be stretched to include oral allegations. Given the context and structure of the provision, it must mean a written application of the same character contemplated under Section 175(3)—one supported by an affidavit.
Summing up its conclusions, the Court clarified that:
-
Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 175 are meant to work together, not in isolation.
-
The Magistrate’s power to order an investigation flows primarily from Section 175(3).
-
Section 175(4) applies that power to cases involving public servants but through a stricter, not looser, procedure.
-
Complaints under Section 175(4) must be written and supported by an affidavit; oral complaints have no place in this framework.
The ruling reinforces a message the Court has returned to repeatedly: when the statute lays down a path, shortcuts are not an option—especially in cases that implicate public servants acting in the course of official duties.
