NAMRATA SUBHASH PAWAR v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Discusses interpretation of key provisions related to public servants and investigation procedures.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:30622
Decision Date: 10-11-2025
List of Laws
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; The Constitution of India; The Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961; The Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Code of Criminal Procedure
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: The judgment extensively discusses Section 175(3) BNSS, highlighting three key changes introduced compared to Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These include mandatory application to the Superintendent of Police before lodging an FIR, the Magistrate's power to conduct an inquiry before directing FIR registration, and the requirement for the Magistrate to consider the officer-in-charge's submissions regarding FIR refusal. The court emphasizes that Section 175(3) applications must be supported by a sworn affidavit confirming exhaustion of remedies under Sections 173(1) and 173(4) BNSS, aiming to prevent undue harassment. This interpretation is significant as it clarifies the procedural safeguards now in place, impacting how practitioners approach FIR registration requests. The key takeaway is the increased burden on applicants and the enhanced scrutiny required from Magistrates. The judgment also analyzes Section 175(4) BNSS, stating it provides an additional safeguard for public servants accused of committing a cognizable offense during official duty. It mandates receiving a report containing facts and circumstances from the superior officer before ordering investigation. The court finds that failure to comply with this mandatory provision vitiates the order of the Magistrate. This interpretation is crucial for protecting public servants from unjustified criminal proceedings. The practical implication is that Magistrates must ensure compliance with this procedure before directing investigation against public servants. The judgment also refers to Section 210 BNSS, noting it empowers the Magistrate to order an investigation against a public servant after receiving a complaint arising from the discharge of official duties, but only after complying with the procedure laid down in Om Prakash Ambadkar. This reinforces the need for Magistrates to follow due process when dealing with complaints against public servants. The judgment also discusses Section 2(29) of the BNSS, particularly clause (k), which defines "public servant". The court finds this definition comprehensive and inclusive, encompassing employees of corporations established by State Enactments, such as the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC). This interpretation is significant as it broadens the scope of protection afforded to public servants under the BNSS. The practical implication is that employees of such corporations are entitled to the procedural safeguards provided by Section 175 BNSS. The judgment also mentions Section 514 of BNSS (formerly Section 468 of CrPC), stating that the learned Magistrate ought to have considered the applicability of this section.
- The Constitution of India: The judgment references Articles 226 and 227, under which the petitioner approached the High Court. These articles confer writ jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction on the High Court, respectively. The significance lies in the court's power to review and correct errors of subordinate courts and tribunals. The practical implication is that individuals aggrieved by orders of lower courts can seek redressal from the High Court under these articles. The judgment also mentions Article 12, stating that the Industrial Development Corporation is a State instrumentality within its meaning. However, the court clarifies that an employee of MIDC does not automatically become a public servant by virtue of this alone. This interpretation is significant as it distinguishes between the status of the corporation and its employees. The practical implication is that the status of an employee as a public servant must be determined based on other factors, such as the definition under Section 2(29) of the BNSS.
- The Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961: The judgment refers to Section 66 of the Act, stating that it makes it manifestly clear that all members, officers, and servants of the Corporation shall be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1861 (now BNS), when acting or purporting to act in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act. The court notes that the contentions put forth by the respondents that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of "public servant" in clause (k) of sub-section 29 of Section 2 of the BNSS read with Section 66 of the Act of 1961 does not warrant any consideration.
- The Indian Penal Code, 1860: The judgment mentions Section 21 IPC, noting that Section 2(29)(k) of the BNS corresponds to it and is rather comprehensive and inclusive. The court states that Section 66 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, deems members, officers, and servants of the Corporation to be public servants within the meaning of Section 21 IPC (now BNS).
- The Code of Criminal Procedure: The judgment refers to Section 156(3) CrPC, comparing it with Section 175(3) of the BNSS and highlighting three prominent changes introduced by the enactment of BNSS. The court notes that applications under Section 156(3) CrPC (now Section 175(3) BNSS) must be supported by a sworn affidavit. The judgment also mentions Section 197 CrPC, stating that the employees of the corporation do not get the protection under it.
🔒 For Members Only