From Judicial Interpretation to Statutory Law: Section 156 CrPC and BNSS, 2023

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in Om Prakash Ambadkar v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 352/2020), has analyzed the procedural changes introduced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in relation to Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This judgment highlights the legislative codification of judicial safeguards aimed at preventing misuse of the powers vested in Magistrates for ordering investigations.

Key Changes in Section 175 of BNSS

Section 175 of BNSS corresponds to Section 156 CrPC but introduces significant procedural modifications:

1.       Mandatory Application to Superintendent of Police:

o   Before approaching a Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS, complainants must apply to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), supported by an affidavit. This ensures that frivolous applications are minimized and complainants act responsibly.

2.       Magistrate's Inquiry:

o   The Magistrate is empowered to conduct inquiries before ordering an investigation under Section 175(3). This step ensures judicial scrutiny and prevents arbitrary directions for lodging FIRs.

3.       Consideration of Police Submissions:

o   Magistrates must consider submissions made by police officers regarding their refusal to register FIRs before issuing directions under Section 175(3). This adds accountability and transparency to the process.

4.      Safeguards for Public Servants:

o   Section 175(4) introduces additional safeguards for public servants accused of cognizable offenses arising from official duties. Magistrates can order investigations only after receiving reports from superior officers and considering explanations provided by the accused public servant.

Judicial Background

The judgment draws heavily from earlier Supreme Court decisions, particularly Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015) and Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka (2022). These rulings emphasized:

·       The necessity for prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC before invoking Section 156(3).

·       The requirement for affidavits supporting applications under Section 156(3), deterring misuse.

·       Judicial vigilance and application of mind by Magistrates while issuing directions for investigation.

Legislative Codification

The BNSS codifies these judicially evolved safeguards into statutory provisions:

·       The mandatory affidavit requirement ensures accountability, deterring frivolous complaints aimed at harassment.

·       Empowering Magistrates to conduct inquiries and consider police submissions enhances judicial oversight.

·       Safeguards for public servants protect them from unwarranted accusations while maintaining avenues for legitimate grievances.

Impact on Judicial Accountability

The changes introduced by BNSS ensure:

·       Greater accountability for both complainants and police officers.

·       Judicial scrutiny in cases involving influential individuals or institutions, reducing misuse of investigative powers.

·       Effective implementation of reasoned orders by Magistrates, promoting fairness in criminal proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment underscores the importance of balancing access to justice with safeguards against procedural abuse. By codifying judicial practices into statutory law, BNSS strengthens the integrity of criminal investigations while ensuring accountability at every level. This legislative evolution marks a significant step towards curbing misuse and promoting responsible litigation practices.

Print Page