BNSS Transition Clarified: No Writ to Compel FIR/Investigation; Complainants Must Use Magistrate Remedies (CrPC s.200/156(3); BNSS s.223)

Introduction

In Dr. Anjana Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2024:MPHC), decided on 14 October 2024 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur (Hon’ble Justice G. S. Ahluwalia), the Court was asked to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct the police to register an FIR, conduct a fair investigation, act upon the petitioner’s representation, and initiate prosecution (including obtaining sanction where required).

The petitioner alleged illegality, forgery, and other offenses by a private respondent (respondent no. 5) allegedly in concert with public officials, and complained of police inaction. The State opposed the writ, contending that such petitions are not maintainable in view of efficacious statutory remedies before the Magistrate.

The core issue before the Court was narrow but important: Is a writ petition maintainable to compel the police to register an FIR or to direct the manner of investigation when the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) — now succeeded by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — provides alternate remedies?

Summary of the Judgment

• The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable for seeking directions to register an FIR or dictate investigation.
• The Court reaffirmed the settled position that for non-registration of FIR or alleged improper investigation, the complainant must:
  • Approach the Superintendent of Police under the statutory mechanism (formerly Section 154(3) CrPC); and/or
  • Approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC (for directions to investigate) or file a complaint invoking Section 200 CrPC (now BNSS Section 223 for examination of complainant).
• The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the Magistrate under Section 200 CrPC / Section 223 BNSS, 2023.
• On the aspect of sanction to prosecute a public servant, the Court noted (relying on Supreme Court guidance) that it falls within the Government’s domain to consider such a request.
• The Court made no observations on the merits of the allegations.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Aleque Padamsee v. Union Of India, (2007) 6 SCC 171: The Supreme Court clarified two crucial points:
  • Police have a duty to register an FIR when information discloses a cognizable offense.
  • However, if the police fail to do so, the remedy is not a writ under Article 226; instead, the complainant must follow the modalities under the Code — notably approaching the Magistrate under Sections 190 and 200 CrPC. The Court issued structured directions and emphasized that issues like grant of sanction are for the Government to decide, preferably within a time frame.
  The High Court draws directly from this framework to refuse writ relief and steer the petitioner to the Magistrate-centric statutory route.
• Divine Retreat Centre v. State Of Kerala, (2008) 3 SCC 542: The Supreme Court underscored that the High Court’s power to interfere with investigation under Article 226 is to be exercised only in the “rarest of rare” situations — where clear mala fides, abuse of power, or non-compliance with the investigation provisions (Chapter XII CrPC) is evident. Even then, courts should not direct “how” the investigation is to be conducted; they may only insist on adherence to the statutory process. This caution informed the High Court’s refusal to entertain the writ on investigation.
• Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409: This landmark decision provides a stepwise remedial path:
  • If FIR is not registered, approach the Superintendent of Police (formerly Section 154(3) CrPC).
  • If that fails — or if investigation is improper — approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC to direct registration and proper investigation, with power to monitor the investigation.
  The High Court relies on this to delineate the proper statutory remedies and to deter writ petitions that bypass them.
• Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, (2016) 6 SCC 277: Reaffirming Sakiri Vasu, the Supreme Court cautioned against High Courts entertaining writs for FIR registration or investigation, noting that such practices would overwhelm writ dockets. The complainant must use Section 156(3) CrPC (Magisterial route). The High Court follows this admonition.
• All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees’ Union v. Union of India, (1996) 11 SCC 582; Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State Of Maharashtra, (2004) 7 SCC 768; Hari Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 733; Minu Kumari v. State Of Bihar, (2006) 4 SCC 359; Lallan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, (2006) 12 SCC 229: Collectively, these authorities emphasize that when the police do not act, the Code provides a complaint/investigation-supervision mechanism through the Magistrate under Chapters XII and XV. The High Court cites this chain to show doctrinal continuity.
• Ramesh Kumari v. State (Nct Of Delhi), (2006) 2 SCC 677: This case dealt with the police’s duty to register an FIR where a cognizable offense is disclosed. The High Court, echoing the Supreme Court’s reconciliation in Aleque Padamsee, notes that while the duty to register exists, the remedy for non-registration is not a writ; it lies with the Magistrate.
• Shweta Bhadauria v. State of M.P. (DB, Gwalior Bench, W.A. No. 247/2016, decided 20.12.2016): The Division Bench of the MP High Court held that a writ of mandamus to compel registration of FIR under Section 154 CrPC is not maintainable when alternate remedies under Sections 154(3), 156(3), 190 and 200 CrPC exist, except in the narrow exceptions laid down in Whirlpool. It also clarified that Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 — which mandates FIR registration where cognizable offenses are disclosed — does not recognize a right to bypass statutory remedies and seek a writ as a matter of course.
• Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1: Cited for the well-known exceptions to the alternate remedy rule. Even so, none of those exceptions were demonstrated here.

Legal Reasoning

The Court frames the “moot question” as the maintainability of a writ to direct the police to register an FIR or to compel investigative steps. It answers this using a settled triad:

• Duty of police to register FIR: There is no dispute that if information discloses a cognizable offense, the police must register an FIR (e.g., Lalita Kumari; Ramesh Kumari).
• Remedial path when police default: The complainant must pursue the statutory mechanisms — escalate to the Superintendent of Police; then move the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC for registration/proper investigation, or file a complaint under Section 200 CrPC (BNSS Section 223) to set the Magistrate’s process in motion (AIIMS Employees’ Union; Gangadhar; Sakiri Vasu; Sudhir Tambe).
• Limits on writ jurisdiction: Absent exceptional circumstances (e.g., demonstrable mala fides or abuse sufficient to satisfy the narrow Whirlpool exceptions or the “rarest of rare” intervention standard from Divine Retreat Centre), the High Court should not direct FIR registration or micro-manage investigation.

Applying these principles, the Court holds that the writ petition is not maintainable. It dismisses the petition but preserves the petitioner’s right to approach the Magistrate under Section 200 CrPC / Section 223 BNSS, 2023. On sanction, the Court aligns with Aleque Padamsee that the matter lies with the Government to consider; the Court refrains from expressing any view on merits.

Impact and Doctrinal Significance

• Continuity into the BNSS era: The judgment is an early, clear articulation that the long-settled “alternate remedy” doctrine for police inaction under the CrPC continues seamlessly under the BNSS. By expressly referencing BNSS Section 223 alongside CrPC Section 200, the Court signals a smooth procedural transition for complainants.
• Reduced writ congestion: Reinforcing Sakiri Vasu and Sudhir Tambe, the decision discourages writ petitions for FIR registration or investigation directions, preserving High Court bandwidth for genuinely extraordinary cases.
• Magistrate-centric oversight: The ruling channels grievances to the Magistrate, who can both direct registration and monitor investigation. This maintains separation of powers: police investigate; Magistrates supervise legality; High Courts intervene only in exceptional circumstances.
• Sanction questions insulated: Consistent with Supreme Court directions, sanction to prosecute public servants remains within the Government’s administrative domain, insulating it from routine writ intervention.
• Clarifies Lalita Kumari’s reach: The case underscores that while FIR registration is mandatory upon disclosure of a cognizable offense, Lalita Kumari does not, by itself, entitle a complainant to writ relief by skipping statutory remedies.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Writ of mandamus: A constitutional remedy asking the court to command a public authority to perform a legal duty. It is discretionary and generally not issued when an effective statutory remedy exists.
• Maintainability: Whether a court should entertain a case at all. A petition may be dismissed as “not maintainable” if there are adequate alternate remedies under statute.
• Alternate remedy doctrine (and Whirlpool exceptions): Courts ordinarily refuse writs when a suitable statutory remedy exists, unless:
  • There is a violation of fundamental rights;
  • There is a breach of natural justice;
  • The order/action is without jurisdiction; or
  • The vires (validity) of a statute is under challenge.
• Cognizable offense: An offense for which police can register an FIR and investigate without prior permission of a court (e.g., serious crimes).
• Key procedural routes when police do not act:
  • Escalate to the Superintendent of Police (statutory escalation from the local police station).
  • Move the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC for directions to register and properly investigate; the Magistrate can monitor investigation.
  • File a complaint case under Section 200 CrPC (now BNSS Section 223) to set the criminal process in motion, where the Magistrate examines the complainant and witnesses and may proceed per Chapter XV.
• Sanction to prosecute public servants: Certain prosecutions (e.g., against public servants for acts done in official capacity) require prior Government sanction (e.g., Section 197 CrPC; Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act). Courts typically do not direct grant of sanction in writ jurisdiction; the competent Government considers and decides.
• “Rarest of rare” (in investigation context): A phrase used to convey that Article 226 interference with police investigation is reserved for exceptional cases of mala fides or abuse, and should not translate into judicial micromanagement of investigative steps.

Practical Guidance Flow (Post–Dr. Anjana Singh)

• Step 1: Lodge information of cognizable offense at the police station; insist on FIR registration.
• Step 2: If FIR is not registered or investigation is perfunctory, escalate to the Superintendent of Police as per the statute.
• Step 3: If dissatisfaction persists, approach the Magistrate:
  • Section 156(3) CrPC: For directions to register FIR/proper investigation and for monitoring; or
  • Section 200 CrPC / Section 223 BNSS: File a complaint; the Magistrate may examine the complainant and witnesses, and proceed under Chapter XV.
• Writ under Article 226: Consider only if exceptional Whirlpool grounds exist (e.g., fundamental rights violation, patent lack of jurisdiction), or in the rarest cases of investigation mala fides/abuse recognized in Divine Retreat Centre.
• Sanction issues: Make an appropriate representation to the competent Government authority; challenge the decision (if necessary) through proper legal channels rather than seeking a blanket writ direction to grant sanction.

Conclusion

The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s ruling in Dr. Anjana Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh does not chart new terrain so much as it consolidates and updates the established alternate-remedy jurisprudence for the BNSS era. The message is consistent and clear:

• Police are duty-bound to register FIRs on disclosure of cognizable offenses; however, the remedy for non-registration or improper investigation lies with the Magistrate — not via writ.
• Article 226 intervention in investigative matters is reserved for exceptional cases and cannot be a substitute for statutory procedures.
• The Court acknowledges BNSS Section 223 as the successor to CrPC Section 200, affirming a smooth doctrinal transition from CrPC to BNSS.
• Sanction decisions remain within the Government’s administrative remit.

In the broader legal context, the decision strengthens procedural discipline: litigants must exhaust structured statutory routes (including Magistrate oversight) before knocking on the writ court’s door. It also promises to keep High Court dockets focused on truly extraordinary cases while empowering Magistrates to ensure that complaints are duly investigated in accordance with law.