In a significant order delivered on 07 April 2026, the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur allowed the criminal revision petition filed by four police officers — Prashant Kaushik (DSP), Manohar Singh (ASI), Sardar Singh (SI) and Kishan Singh (Driver) — and set aside the order dated 21 November 2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar. The Special Judge had, on a private complaint filed by one Tek Chand under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), directed the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar, to register an FIR against the petitioners without affording them any opportunity of hearing or calling for a report from their superior officer. Justice Farjand Ali held that the impugned order was non-speaking, mechanical and passed in complete disregard of the mandatory safeguards prescribed under Section 223 BNSS, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioners who are public servants discharging official duties.
The backdrop of the case involved cross-FIRs between the parties. FIR No. 500/2025 was registered against the complainant Tek Chand and others, leading to a charge-sheet. In retaliation, Tek Chand lodged FIR No. 587/2025 against certain persons, which culminated in a negative final report with observations of retaliatory intent. Thereafter, Tek Chand filed the private complaint alleging various offences under the BNS and SC/ST Act against the petitioners, primarily claiming irregularities and inaction in the investigation of FIR No. 587/2025. The Special Judge, without examining the complaint in the light of Section 223 BNSS, straightaway directed registration of an FIR under Section 175(3) BNSS.
The High Court, after a detailed scrutiny of the complaint and the statutory scheme, observed that the allegations against the petitioners were intrinsically linked to the discharge of their official duties in the course of investigation. In such cases, Section 223 BNSS expressly mandates that a Magistrate shall not take cognizance of a complaint against a public servant unless (i) the public servant is given an opportunity to explain the circumstances leading to the incident, and (ii) a report containing facts and circumstances is obtained from the superior officer. The Court emphasised that Section 223 BNSS is a deliberate legislative safeguard introduced in the new criminal procedure code to protect honest public servants from vexatious and retaliatory complaints. The expression “while taking cognizance” in Section 223 is of wide amplitude and covers the preparatory stage when the Magistrate examines a complaint under Section 175(3) BNSS. The impugned order, being completely silent on these mandatory requirements and passed without any application of mind to the intertwined facts of prior FIRs and the negative final report, was held to be unsustainable.
The High Court clarified that the power under Section 175(3) BNSS is not to be exercised mechanically or as a tool of vendetta, especially when the complaint is directed against public servants for acts allegedly done in discharge of official functions. The Court accordingly set aside the impugned order dated 21 November 2025 and quashed all consequential proceedings. However, to balance the interests of the complainant, the matter was remanded back to the learned Special Judge for fresh adjudication de novo. The Special Judge has been directed to undertake a comprehensive preliminary inquiry, strictly adhere to the procedure under Section 223 BNSS by affording an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, call for a report from the superior officer, and thereafter pass a well-reasoned and speaking order. Only upon such due compliance shall the court be at liberty either to dismiss the complaint or to proceed further by taking cognizance and issuing process, as warranted by law.
The High Court reiterated that Section 223 BNSS acts as a judicial filter and a substantive safeguard to prevent misuse of the criminal process against public servants while ensuring that genuine grievances are not prematurely discarded. The revision petition was accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
Case Title: Prashant Kaushik & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.: 47/2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Farjand Ali
Click HERE for full Judgment
Lawcutor 