Kaushik Panja & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Anr, 2026

The petitioners approached Magistrates seeking directions for investigation after the police refused to register FIRs.

The Magistrates mechanically directed the police to conduct an “inquiry” and submit reports.

These orders were challenged before the High Court on the ground that they violated the statutory framework under BNSS.

Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held that the term “inquiry” under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 refers to a judicial function and not a police function.

The Court held that Magistrates cannot delegate the duty of conducting an inquiry to the police authorities.

The judgment emphasized that the statutory framework requires application of judicial mind and adherence to procedural safeguards before directing investigation.

The Court clarified that under Section 175(3) BNSS, a Magistrate must determine whether a cognizable offence is disclosed.

The Magistrate must also assess whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed with investigation.

The Court held that the power to conduct an “inquiry” is non-delegable and must be exercised personally by the Magistrate.

The judgment stated that an inquiry under Section 175(3) is limited in scope.

The Court clarified that such an inquiry is not a detailed or roving investigation.

The procedure for inquiry is flexible in nature, including the use of video conferencing where appropriate.

The Magistrate may seek explanations from the police regarding refusal to register an FIR.

However, the Magistrate must retain complete control over the inquiry process and ultimately form an independent opinion.

The judgment reinforces the principle that a Magistrate must apply an independent judicial mind before directing investigation.

It clarifies that the power to conduct an “inquiry” under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 lies solely with the Magistrate and cannot be delegated to the police.

The Court prevents mechanical passing of orders by emphasizing the need for reasoned judicial satisfaction.

The ruling strengthens procedural safeguards introduced under the BNSS.

The decision aligns with earlier Supreme Court rulings such as Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

The Court draws a clear distinction between the duty to register an FIR and the discretion to investigate a case.

The introduction of the “twin test” ensures that Magistrates examine both the existence of a cognizable offence and sufficient grounds for investigation.

The judgment limits the misuse of criminal law by discouraging frivolous or motivated complaints.

It reinforces the Magistrate’s role as a judicial gatekeeper in the criminal justice system.

The ruling ensures accountability in the exercise of powers under Section 175(3).

The Court protects individuals from unnecessary police investigation initiated without proper judicial scrutiny.

The decision promotes consistency and discipline in magisterial proceedings.

It clarifies the legislative intent behind replacing Section 156(3) CrPC with Section 175(3) BNSS.

The judgment contributes to a more structured and fair criminal procedure framework.