Allahabad High Court Directs Magistrates to Cite Contempt Against Police Pressure
The Allahabad High Court has issued a significant advisory to judicial magistrates, urging them to make contempt references against senior police officers who attempt to browbeat or pressure them during the investigation of cases. This directive comes as the court addresses concerns about the independence of the judiciary in the face of high-handed police conduct.
Court's Firm Stance on Judicial Independence
In a detailed order dated March 9, a division bench comprising Justice J J Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi emphasized that magistrates should not hesitate to pass necessary orders in cases merely because a police officer has caused them inconvenience. The bench explicitly stated that when faced with pressure from a police officer, the magistrate always has the option to make a contempt reference to the court, thereby safeguarding judicial authority.
The observation was made while summarily dismissing a criminal writ petition related to the registration of an FIR in Farrukhabad district. The petitioner had sought a direction for the Superintendent of Police (SP) in Farrukhabad to decide his representation, dated August 19, 2025, for lodging an FIR in a time-bound manner. The court expressed strong displeasure over such requests, noting that they render the court virtually powerless.
Critique of Representation-Based Petitions
The high court observed that prayers seeking directions to authorities to decide representations lead to a deluge of writ petitions where the court is not required to decide anything substantive. Authorities often assume the court can only ask them to take decisions instead of resolving the matter itself, which undermines judicial efficacy.
The court clarified the proper legal recourse in such scenarios:
- If an officer-in-charge of a police station refuses to record information about a cognizable offence under Section 173(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the informant may send the substance of the information in writing by post to the concerned SP.
- Upon receipt, the SP is obliged to either investigate the offence or direct an investigation by a subordinate officer.
Alternative Remedies Under BNSS
The division bench further elaborated on the statutory framework, stating that if the SP does not pass orders on an application under Section 173 BNSS, the remedy lies before the judicial magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS. The judicial magistrate may, upon an application supported by an affidavit, order an investigation by the police.
In the present case, the court concluded that the petitioner's remedy was to move the concerned judicial magistrate through an application under Section 174(3) BNSS. Consequently, the petition was summarily dismissed due to the availability of this statutory alternative remedy, reinforcing that the petitioner had the option to seek FIR registration by approaching the competent magistrate.
This ruling underscores the high court's commitment to upholding judicial autonomy and ensuring that legal processes are followed without undue interference from law enforcement agencies.
