INTRODUCTION
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that police cannot directly register an FIR for offences committed in or in relation to court proceedings. Instead, the procedure outlined under Sections 215 and 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 must be followed. This means the concerned court itself must initiate the process by making a complaint, rather than allowing direct police action via FIR. This observation came in a recent judgment decided on January 7, 2026.
Observations
Core Holding: Where an offence (such as those affecting public justice, e.g., false evidence, forgery of documents produced in court, perjury, or similar acts obstructing judicial proceedings) is alleged to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding before a court, or involves a document produced or given in evidence in such a proceeding, the police lack authority to straightaway register an FIR and investigate independently. The court must take the initiative.
Direct police registration of a crime under such circumstances (linked to Section 215 BNSS offences) is impermissible. Prosecution must be initiated through the court's formal complaint mechanism.
This aligns with the protective framework under BNSS to prevent misuse of process and ensure judicial oversight for offences impacting the administration of justice.
Relevant Provisions: Sections 215 and 379 BNSS
These sections (corresponding broadly to old CrPC Sections 195 and 340) safeguard the administration of justice by restricting direct cognizance or police action in certain cases.
Section 215 BNSS — Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. It covers offences like those against public justice (e.g., false evidence, fabricating evidence, using forged documents as genuine in judicial proceedings), contempt-related acts in court, or offences involving documents produced/given in evidence.
Clause (b) of sub-section (1) specifically targets offences committed in or in relation to a proceeding in a court or regarding documents tendered in evidence.
No court can take cognizance of such offences (except as provided) without a complaint in writing from the concerned court or authorized officer.
Section 379 BNSS — Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 215: When a court (suo motu or on application) forms the opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to inquire into an offence referred to in Section 215(1)(b) — i.e., committed in relation to its own proceedings or a document in evidence — it may:
1. Conduct a preliminary inquiry (if deemed necessary).
2. Record a finding.
3. Make a formal complaint in writing.
4. Take steps to secure the accused's appearance (if needed).
5. Forward the complaint to a Magistrate with jurisdiction.
If the offence appears non-bailable, the court may order custody to the Magistrate.
The Magistrate then treats the case as instituted on a police report (proceeding accordingly).
Appeals lie if the court refuses or makes such a complaint.
CONCLUSION
In essence, the Madhya Pradesh High Court emphasized that for offences tied to court proceedings (e.g., filing false affidavits, producing forged documents in court, or acts interfering with justice), the court concerned must form an opinion, conduct any needed inquiry, and file a complaint under Section 379 BNSS. Police cannot bypass this by registering an FIR directly under Section 215-linked offences.
This ruling reinforces judicial control over prosecution in matters affecting court integrity, preventing arbitrary or premature police intervention. If you have the specific case citation or more context, further details can be explored.
Comments
Post a Comment