Case Note & Summary
The petition arose from a private complaint filed by Respondent No.2 against the Petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police, alleging caste-based abuse and threats. The complaint was filed before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuramu, under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the Magistrate by order dated 26.07.2025 directed the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Anantapuramu to investigate and submit a report. The Petitioner filed Criminal Petition No.9676 of 2025 under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashment of the proceedings and the reference order, contending that the Magistrate's order was mechanical, without reasons, and in violation of mandatory prerequisites laid down in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. The Petitioner also alleged that the incident was dated 15.01.2023 when he was not posted at the relevant police station, and that the complaint was an afterthought with unexplained delay of over two years. Respondent No.2, appearing in person, maintained that she had first lodged complaints with the police and the Superintendent of Police but no action was taken, and that she had filed all documents and affidavit in compliance with Priyanka Srivastava. She asserted that specific allegations warranted investigation. The Assistant Public Prosecutor left the matter to the court. The High Court examined the provisions of Sections 173 and 175 BNSS, comparing them with Sections 154 and 156 CrPC. It noted that Section 173(4) BNSS statutorily incorporates the principles of Priyanka Srivastava, requiring prior applications to the police and Superintendent of Police and an affidavit. The Court extracted the Magistrate's order and found it lacked reasons and did not demonstrate application of judicial mind. The Court also referred to Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka and Lalita Kumari. The extracted portion of the judgment ends during the analysis of Section 175 BNSS without recording a final operative order, but the court's reasoning strongly indicated that the Magistrate's mechanical reference was unsustainable. The final outcome of the petition is not contained in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Investigation on Private Complaint - Section 175(3) BNSS / Section 156(3) CrPC - Magistrate's Application of Judicial Mind - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 175(3), 173(4) - The Magistrate referred a private complaint for investigation without recording reasons or demonstrating application of judicial mind. The High Court observed that before ordering investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS, the Magistrate must consider the application supported by an affidavit, make necessary inquiry, and record satisfaction. The mechanical order dated 26.07.2025 was found deficient. Held that the order was unsustainable for non-compliance with mandatory prerequisites (Paras 7-10, 12).
B) Criminal Procedure - Prior Applications Requirement - Sections 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC corresponding to Sections 173(1) and 173(4) BNSS - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 173(4); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 154(1), 154(3) - Before approaching the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS, a complainant must first approach the police and then the Superintendent of Police, and the application must be supported by an affidavit. This principle, established in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, is now statutorily embodied in Section 173(4) BNSS. The High Court emphasized that failure to comply with these prerequisites vitiates the Magistrate's order (Paras 11-13).
C) Criminal Procedure - Complaint Against Public Servant - Section 175(4) BNSS - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 175(4) - Where a complaint arises against a public servant in discharge of official duties, the Magistrate may order investigation only after receiving a report from the officer superior to the public servant and considering the public servant's assertions. The extracted judgment text sets out this provision and indicates the need for compliance in the present case (Para 14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Magistrate's order dated 26.07.2025 referring the private complaint in C.F.No.277 of 2025 for investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS was legally valid, particularly regarding compliance with the mandatory prerequisites under Sections 173(1) and 173(4) BNSS and the affidavit requirement as per Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P.; whether the proceedings were liable to be quashed on grounds of delay, mala fides, and abuse of process.
Law Points
- Magistrate must apply judicial mind before ordering investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS
- Prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC (corresponding to Sections 173(1) and 173(4) BNSS) are mandatory before approaching Magistrate
- Application under Section 175(3) BNSS must be supported by affidavit as per Priyanka Srivastava
- Mechanical reference without recording reasons is unsustainable
- Delay and mala fides in filing complaint must be examined
Case Details
2026 LawText (AP) (01) 23
Criminal Petition No. 9676 of 2025
Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
T.V. Suman (Petitioner), Sake Roja (Party in Person), K. Priyanka Lakshmi (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
State of Andhra Pradesh and Sake Roja
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashment of proceedings in private complaint C.F.No.277 of 2025 referred for investigation by Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner/Accused No.1 sought quashing of the Magistrate's order dated 26.07.2025 and the proceedings in C.F.No.277 of 2025 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuramu.
Filing Reason
Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint alleging caste-based abuse and threats; the Magistrate referred it for investigation; the petitioner contended the order was mechanical, without prerequisites, and the complaint was malafide.
Previous Decisions
No prior judicial decisions mentioned; complainant allegedly lodged prior complaints with police and Superintendent of Police without action; representation to Vigilance dated 22.04.2025. High Court passed interim order dated 16.09.2025 directing Magistrate to post matter to another date.
Issues
Whether the Magistrate complied with the mandatory prerequisites under Section 175(3) BNSS read with Section 173(4) BNSS before ordering investigation.
Whether the private complaint and reference were vitiated by delay, mala fides, and abuse of process warranting quashing.
Whether the Magistrate was required to record reasons and apply judicial mind before referring the complaint for investigation.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: The learned Magistrate vide order dated 26.07.2025 mechanically referred the complaint for investigation without recording reasons or demonstrating application of judicial mind; the alleged incident pertained to 15.01.2023 whereas petitioner served as Sub-Inspector, Uravakonda Police Station only from 02.04.2021 to 27.01.2022; complaint suffered from unexplained delay of over two years; prior complaints unsupported by acknowledgments; mandatory prerequisites under Section 175(3) BNSS and Priyanka Srivastava not satisfied; allegations bald and omnibus; complainant habitual with about 35 complaints; continuation would cause irreparable prejudice and abuse of process.
Respondent No.2: Petitioner and other accused allegedly threatened and abused her in filthy language invoking caste due to refusal by father to hand over assigned land under YSR Housing Scheme; complaint lodged with police but no action; further complaint to Superintendent of Police by registered post evoking no response; private complaint under Section 175(3) BNSS filed with all documents and affidavit in compliance with Priyanka Srivastava; specific allegations warrant investigation; proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage.
State/Assistant Public Prosecutor: Nothing further to add; court may pass appropriate orders.
Ratio Decidendi
A Magistrate ordering investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS must consider the application supported by an affidavit under Section 173(4) BNSS, after making such inquiry as necessary and considering submissions by police officer; the order must not be mechanical and must reflect application of judicial mind. Prior to approaching the Magistrate, the complainant must first make applications to the police and Superintendent of Police under Sections 173(1) and 173(4) BNSS (corresponding to Sections 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC) and support the application with an affidavit, as mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka.
Judgment Excerpts
The core challenge is to the legality of the learned Magistrate’s order passed under Section 175(3) BNSS, by which the private complaint in C.F. No.277 of 2025 was referred for investigation.
The learned Magistrate, vide order dated 26.07.2025, mechanically referred the complaint for investigation without recording reasons or demonstrating application of judicial mind.
In Priyanka Srivastava (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that prior to making an application to the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the applicant must make applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C., and that such applications must be supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant.
Section 173 (4) BNSS, which is relevant for the present determination is similar to Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C. to most extent. The new addition in Section 173 (4) BNSS is simply the statutory embodiment of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) providing an express statutory remedy to the aggrieved person to approach the Magistrate after refusal by police authorities.
Procedural History
Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint C.F.No.277 of 2025 under Section 175(3) BNSS before Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuramu, alleging offences against petitioner and others. Learned Magistrate vide order dated 26.07.2025 directed Station House Officer, II Town P.S., Anantapuramu to investigate and submit report by 17.09.2025. Petitioner filed Criminal Petition No.9676 of 2025 under Section 528 BNSS challenging the reference. High Court passed interim order dated 16.09.2025 directing the Magistrate to post the matter to another date.
Acts & Sections
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Section 528, Section 173, Section 173(4), Section 175, Section 175(3), Section 175(4), Section 210
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 154, Section 154(1), Section 154(3), Section 156, Section 156(3), Section 190
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989:
