CASE NAME:- OM PRAKASH AMBADKAR V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS

Citation	Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 2020
Date	16 January 2025
Court Name	Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
plaintiff/appellant/petitioner	Om Prakash Ambadkar
defendant/respondent.	The State of Maharashtra
Judges	Two‑Judge Bench comprising:Justice J.B. PardiwalaJustice R. Mahadevan

Facts Of The Case

• Om Prakash Ambadkar (the Appellant) went to the police to lodge a complaint, which alleged that certain individuals had committed a cognizable offence against him. The nature of the allegations was serious, but the police authorities refused to take any measures to register a First Information Report (FIR).
• As the police failed to act, the appellant made an application to the Judicial Magistrate directing the concerned police officials to register an FIR and start an investigation on the basis of the provisions contained earlier in Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now in Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)).
• The magistrate granted the application without fixing the date for a hearing and without issuing notice to the police or giving them a chance to hear the application. The magistrate granted the application ex parte by relying only on the allegations of the appellant and the relevant documents.
• Challenging this order, the State of Maharashtra and the police authorities contested the adjudication made by the Magistrate as there was, in their view, a new statutory framework, BNSS, and particularly Section 175(3), which suggested obligations to be compliant with the principles of natural justice. In their submission, the police had a right to explain why it had not registered an FIR before a court directed them under a judicial prerogative.
• The central fact, which determined the legal presumption, was the lack of a hearing afforded to police before the Magistrate issued coercive directions. This raised an important procedural issue: could such an order be made without hearing the defence to it?
• The case was, like this, about the procedural protections imposed in the BNSS, particularly rights attributed to complainants, rights attributed to law enforcement agencies, and the latitude given to a lower court/ Magistrate when dealing with these applications.
• These facts are important because they go directly to the procedural fairness issue, which was the whole issue that was in question.  The timing of the events, the nature of the complaint, the failure to hear from the police, and the change in BNSS all contributed meaningfully to the dispute that went up to the Supreme Court.

Issues Of The Case

1. Whether a Judicial Magistrate, while acting pursuant to Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is obligated to afford a hearing to the police authorities before directing them to register a First Information Report (FIR)?
2. Whether the ex parte order passed by the Magistrate by considering only the version of the complainant, offended the principle of natural justice, primarily the right to be heard (audi alteram partem)?
3. Whether there is an implied procedural duty, which arises from Section 175(3) BNSS, that burdens the Magistrate, which replaces Section 156(3) CrPC, to adhere to a fair hearing process, when it would compel the Magistrate to give coercive directions against the law enforcement authorities?
4. Whether the order directing registration of FIR is legally untenable due to the inaction of the police authorities and absence of preliminary verification, it was incumbent upon the Magistrate to seek an explanation for the police inaction.
5. Should the complainant’s right to request redress in court for the failure of police to take action be balanced against the protections provided to public officials as it pertains to procedural obligations, especially given the new procedures under the BNSS? 
6. Should the Supreme Court, given that it is interpreting a new law under the BNSS, apply the same tests of judicial review addressed under the CrPC or must the intervention by Magistrates have a different threshold under Section 175 (3)?
7. Can judicial directions that are issued without an enquiry or any consideration of an enquiry be sustained in matters where police discretion and factual accountability under the new Criminal Procedure framework is at stake?

Judgement 

1. The Supreme Court ruled that, before making an order under Section 175(3) of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for FIR registration, a Magistrate has an obligation to hear the police.
2. On the question of natural justice, the Court held that the rules of natural justice were seriously compromised by passing ex parte orders without hearing the police, and that such an order that has a potentially binding effect on public authorities, particularly when it relates to a statutory function of the police, should not be passed without hearing the police.
3. The Supreme Court stated that Section 175(3) of BNSS does not allow for mechanical or one-sided orders. It requires a mental application that considers the police body’s view.
4. The Supreme Court found the Magistrate’s lack of inquiry into the limited reasons that the police presented and the lack of proper legal bases for denying the FIR to be “procedurally improper” and not a legally sustainable decision.
5. The Court stressed that the complainant’s right to seek registration of an FIR has to be balanced with procedural safeguards and directions cannot be made in a vacuum devoid of other considerations or scrutiny.
6. In determining the meaning of the ambit of Section 175(3), the Court was prepared to depart from past practices under the CrPC to the required extent, affirming that BNSS has provided a more structured and proportionate procedure to follow and the proceeding should be followed in Both spirit and substance.
7. Accordingly, the Supreme Court overturned the Magistrate’s order directing the registration of an FIR and stated such orders must be made following notice and a hearing to the concerned police authorities.

Summary of The Conclusion of the Court:

The Supreme Court stated that a Magistrate is obliged to give a hearing to the police before ordering a FIR to be registered under Section 175(3) BNSS, thus replaced the erroneous ex parte order of the lower court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s logic stemmed from the essence of natural justice, namely, the right to be heard. The Court reiterated that the directions issued under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was not a mechanical exercise of discretion by the Magistrate acting as a rubber stamp, when registration was sought due to police inaction.

In its analysis of the provision, the Court observed the transition from CrPC to the BNSS, entails a more comprehensive framework and more effective safeguards. The Court opined that given the effective directions under Section 175(3) on the acts and duties of police, it was only fair to afford the police an opportunity to explain their non-action prior to any coercive order being issued against them.

The Court rejected the argument that an ex parte order would suffice in these circumstances. There was no difference between passing directions for FIR registration without hearing the police concerned, and depriving the police of the right to present its case, undermining the role of the Magistrate as a neutral judicial authority.  The judgment reaffirmed that fairness in process is as equally important as the fairness in outcome.

The Court added policy considerations and warned against a blanket judicial rule requiring FIR registration without determining the factual matrix. Such a rule may have implications for the misuse of legal machinery, result in unnecessary investigations by police, and undermine public confidence in the justice system.

The Bench invoked broad constitutional principles and stated that procedural justice is fundamental to the rule of law, particularly in the field of criminal law, because not just private individual rights but also public accountability is engaged.

In the end the Court’s reasoning brought together statutory reading, procedural fairness and policy balance to hold that, before the issuing of directions by a Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS, the police must be given a chance to have their say.

References

• Priyanka Srivastava v State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 287.
• Om Prakash Ambadkar v State of Maharashtra & Ors, Criminal Appeal No 352 of 2020 (SC, 16 January 2025).
• Lalita Kumari v Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, s 175(3).
• Constitution of India, art 21.
• Madan B Lokur, ‘Reforming Criminal Procedure: From CrPC to BNSS’ (2024) 12(1) Journal of Indian Law and Justice 45.

This article is written by TANUSRI SANTRA, a student of the Department of Law, Calcutta University, 4^th sem, during my internship at LEGAL VIDHYA

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.