APHC010279572026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4420/2026 Between: 1. KOTA LAKSHMI KALYANI W/O PRAVEEN KUMEIR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,OCC TAHSILDAR, R/O 3-145/A, UMMADIDEVARAPALLE,NEMALI, ANDHRA PRDAESH. 521481 2. PARCHA DIVAKARA SUDHASREE ALIAS SUBASREE, ,W/O RAGHAVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YAARS,OCC VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER,R/O PENUGANCHIPROLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL,NTR DISTRICT. 521481 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER,PENUGANCHIPROLU POLICE STATION, NTR DISTRICTREP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. 2. GUTTA SAIDESWARA RAO, S/O KRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARSR/O PENUGANCHIPROLU MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT. 521481 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to quash the Docket order dated 12-02-2025 in CF No.986/2025 on the file of the Principal Judicial First- Class Magistrate, Jaggaiahpet and consequential proceedings in -2- CRL.P. No.4420 OF 2026 FIR.No.79/2025 on the file of the Penuganchiprolu Police Station, NTR District in the interest of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased Pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in FIR.No.79/2025 on the file of the Penuganchiprolu Police Station, NTR District pending disposal of the above Crl.P. in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: -3- CRL.P. No.4420 OF 2026 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4420/2026 ORDER: 1. Petitioner No.1 is Tahsildar and petitioner No.2 is Village Revenue Officer. They have been arrayed as accused in a private complaint lodged by de-facto complainant under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short „Cr.P.C.‟), alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, „I.P.C.’) and Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After receiving complaint, learned Magistrate referred the matter to the concerned police for the purpose of investigation. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order passed by learned Magistrate is not in conformity with the direction of the statute specifically Section 175 (3) and (4) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘B.N.S.S.’). He further submits that present petitioners being Tahsildar and Village Revenue Officer are public servants. So, before forwarding private complaint to the police for investigation, learned Magistrate had to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 175(4) of B.N.S.S. In this case, learned Magistrate has not followed the said procedure. Thus, impugned proceeding is liable to be quashed. -4- CRL.P. No.4420 OF 2026 3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State raised strong objections and submits that the issue has been raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aswini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India1, wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that, before forwarding a complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is not required to obtain prior sanction under Sections 196 and 197 of Cr.P.C., i.e., prior sanction of authority. He further submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court, wherein Delhi High Court has observed that statutory requirement to obtain prior sanction under Sections 196 and 197 of Cr.P.C. is required by a Court prior to refer a private complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Relevant portion of the judgment in Aswini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (supra) is set out hereunder: "Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 156(3) & Sections 196, 197 – Prior Sanction is NOT a precondition for directing registration of an FIR or conducting an investigation at the pre-cognizance stage – The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court‟s view and ruled that the statutory requirement of obtaining prior sanction under Sections 196 and 197 of the CrPC operates strictly at the stage of “taking cognizance” by a Court – It does not extend to the anterior, pre-cognizance stage of registering an FIR or directing a police investigation under Section 156(3) – An order passed by a Magistrate directing an investigation under Section 156(3) does not amount to “taking cognizance” within the meaning of Section 190 of the CrPC – To condition the registration of an FIR upon prior sanction would invert the sequential statutory scheme and render investigative provisions unworkable. [Relied on State of Karnataka v. Pastor P.Raju (2006) 6 SCC 728; Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409 PARAS 101-164]” 1 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 437 -5- CRL.P. No.4420 OF 2026 4. Heard learned counsels for the parties. Perused the order passed by learned Magistrate. 5. It appears that specific allegation was made against present petitioners, who are acting as Tahsildar and Village Revenue Officer. It has been alleged that they manipulated revenue records, which is illegal and thereby they have committed the offence. Section 175 (3) and (4) is a new provision incorporated in B.N.S.S. to deal with complaints against public servants. The relevant provisions are extracted hereunder: “Section 175. Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case. (1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIV: Provided that considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the Superintendent of Police may require the Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the case. (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 210 may, after considering the application supported by an affidavit made under sub-section (4) of section 173, and after making such inquiry as he thinks necessary and submission made in this regard by the police officer, order such an investigation as above-mentioned. (4) Any Magistrate empowered under section 210, may, upon receiving a complaint against a public servant arising in course of the discharge of his official duties, order investigation, subject to - (a) receiving a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to him; and (b) after consideration of the assertions made by the public servant as to the situation that led to the incident so alleged.” -6- CRL.P. No.4420 OF 2026 6. It appears from the provision that Section 175 of B.N.S.S. has dealt with powers of police officers to investigate cognizable offences. In Sub-section (4) it has been enumerated that learned Magistrate, upon receiving complaint against a public servant arisen in course of discharge of their duties, may order investigation subject to the fact that he must receive a report from the superior officer. 7. The position of law has been specifically explained by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2 (Criminal Appeal No.4629 of 2025), wherein the power and procedure of judicial Magistrate and guidelines thereof has been specified by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in paragraphs 45 and 46 of the said judgment as follows: “45. Having clarified the symbiotic relationship between sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 175, it is indispensable to indicate the circumstances in which the procedure under sub-section (4) could get activated. Significantly, sub-section (4) of Section 175 uses the modal verb “may” and not „shall‟. In the context where it finds place and the object that is sought to be achieved, “may” has to be read as “may”, bearing an element of discretion, and not „shall‟. The principles, discussed in the following paragraphs, are intended to guide judicial magistrates at the stage of considering applications under Section 175. 46. Upon receiving a complaint under sub-section (4) of Section 175, BNSS alleging commission of an offence by a public servant arising in course of the discharge of his official duties, the magistrate may do either of the following: 46.1 Reading the complaint, if the judicial magistrate is prima facie satisfied that commission of the alleged act giving rise to an offence arose in course of discharge of official duties by the public servant, such magistrate may not have any option other than following the procedure prescribed under sub-section (4) of 2 2026 Live Law (SC) 85 -7- CRL.P. No.4420 OF 2026 Section 175 of calling for reports from the superior officer and the accused public servant. 46.2 Or, on a consideration of the complaint, where the judicial magistrate entertains a prima facie doubt depending upon the circumstances as to whether the offence alleged to have been committed by the public servant arose in course of discharge of his official duties, such magistrate might err on the side of caution and proceed to follow the procedure prescribed in sub- section (4) of Section 175. 46.3 Or, where the judicial magistrate is satisfied that the alleged act of offence was not committed in the discharge of official duties and/or it bears no reasonable nexus thereto, and also that the rigours of sub-section (4) of Section 175 are not attracted, the complaint may be dealt with in accordance with the general procedure prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 175.” 8. In the present case, petitioners being Tahsildar and Village Revenue Officer alleged to have been acted some illegality in discharge of their official duty. In that score, though power under Section 175(4) of B.N.S.S. is discretionary, but in this particular case, the alleged act was done in discharge of official duties of petitioners. Hence, learned Magistrate must follow the procedure laid down under Section 175(4) of B.N.S.S. which in the particular facts and circumstances became mandatory. 9. In the present case, learned Magistrate had not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 175(4) of B.N.S.S. before forwarding the complaint to the police for investigation. 10. Accordingly, the order forwarding the complaint to the police for investigation appears to be illegal and is hereby quashed. The learned Magistrate may forward the complaint to the police after -8- CRL.P. No.4420 OF 2026 complying with the provisions contained in Section 175(3) and (4) of B.N.S.S. 11. Under the above observations, instant criminal petition is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be served upon learned Magistrate concerned to comply. 12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dt.17.06.2026 BV