Filing a Complaint Against a Public Servant: Section 175(4), 218 BNSS vs Section 156(3), 197 CrPC

In India, a complaint against a public servant for an act done in the discharge of official duty now has a dedicated investigation-ordering route under Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), conditioned on a superior officer's report and the public servant's own response — a text with no counterpart in Section 156(3) CrPC — and the sanction bar at Section 218 BNSS now carries a 120-day deadline that Section 197 CrPC never had.

The situation

A person wants to file a criminal complaint alleging that a public servant — a police officer, a government official, a Judge or Magistrate — committed an offence while acting, or purporting to act, in the discharge of official duty. Two separate hurdles arise: getting an investigation ordered in the first place, and, later, getting the court's cognizance past the sanction requirement that protects public servants acting officially.

Old law vs new law at a glance

What the law requires now, step by step

Step 1 — A complaint against a public servant reaches a Magistrate

Section 175(4) BNSS states:

"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... 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."

No equivalent sub-provision appears in Section 156(3) CrPC as read — that section addresses only the Magistrate's general power to order an investigation, without singling out complaints against public servants.

Step 2 — The two express conditions

Before ordering investigation under Section 175(4) BNSS, the Magistrate must have (a) a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to the public servant, and (b) the public servant's own assertions as to the situation that led to the incident. Both must be in place — the sub-section uses "subject to" both clauses, not either.

Step 3 — If investigation leads to a chargeable offence, the sanction bar applies

Section 218(1) BNSS restates the same core protection as Section 197(1) CrPC: no court can take cognizance of an offence allegedly committed by a Judge, Magistrate or public servant not removable from office save by or with the sanction of the Government while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty, without the sanction of the appropriate government — Central Government for Union employees, State Government for State employees — "save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013." This carve-out is not new to the BNSS: Section 197(1) CrPC carries the identical words, inserted by Act 1 of 2014.

Step 4 — The 120-day deadline on the sanction decision

Section 218(1) BNSS's second proviso states:

"such Government shall take a decision within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of the receipt of the request for sanction and in case it fails to do so, the sanction shall be deemed to have been accorded by such Government."

Section 197 CrPC, as read in this session, contains no equivalent timeline or deeming provision anywhere in its text. A comparable mechanism does appear in the CrPC library text as a State amendment: Maharashtra Act 33 of 2016 added provisos to Sections 156 and 190 CrPC, in their application to Maharashtra, requiring the sanctioning authority to decide within ninety days of receiving the proposal, failing which sanction was deemed accorded.

Step 5 — Some offences need no sanction at all

Section 218(1)'s third proviso lists Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 sections for which "no sanction shall be required": sections 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 143, 199 and 200. Section 197(1) CrPC's Explanation — itself inserted only in 2013 — listed a comparable but not identical set of Indian Penal Code sections (166A, 166B, 354, 354A-D, 370, 375, 376A, 376AB, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB, 509). Because BNS and IPC numbering and offence definitions differ, the two lists cannot be read as a straight one-to-one mapping without checking each BNS section on its own text.

Step 6 — Which government decides, and the Article 356 exception

Section 218(1)(a)-(b) BNSS keeps the same split as Section 197(1)(a)-(b) CrPC: Central Government for a person employed in connection with the affairs of the Union, State Government for a person employed in connection with the affairs of a State. Both carry the same proviso substituting "Central Government" for "State Government" during a Proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution.

What changed — and what did not

• New provision: Section 175(4) BNSS's dedicated route for a complaint against a public servant, with its two named conditions, has no equivalent sub-provision found in Section 156(3) CrPC.
• New: The 120-day deemed-sanction timeline in Section 218(1) BNSS's second proviso does not appear anywhere in Section 197 CrPC as read. It is new to the central text; in Maharashtra, Maharashtra Act 33 of 2016 had already added a ninety-day deemed-sanction proviso to Sections 156 and 190 CrPC.
• Modified: The list of offences requiring no sanction moved from IPC section numbers (Section 197(1) Explanation, CrPC) to BNS section numbers (Section 218(1), third proviso, BNSS) — the lists are comparable in subject matter but are not identical section-for-section.
• Identical in substance: The core sanction bar, the Central/State Government split, the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act carve-out, the Article 356 substitution proviso, and the separate Armed Forces sanction requirement in sub-section (2) all carry over from Section 197 CrPC to Section 218 BNSS largely unchanged in wording.

Which law applies to your case

If the alleged conduct, or the complaint itself, occurred before 1 July 2024, the CrPC's sanction and investigation-ordering provisions may continue to govern a matter that was already pending under the savings clause at Section 531 BNSS, rather than Section 175 or Section 218 BNSS applying retrospectively. The full rule is set out in Which Law Applies to an Offence Before 1 July 2024. This article does not restate the transition rule beyond that reference.

Practical checklist

For the person filing the complaint:

• Identify whether the alleged act was done, or purported to be done, in the discharge of official duty, and whether the public servant is removable from office only by or with the sanction of the Government — together these determine whether the Section 218 BNSS sanction bar applies at all.
• Be prepared for the Magistrate to seek a report from the public servant's superior officer, and to consider the public servant's own assertions as to the situation that led to the incident, before ordering investigation under Section 175(4) BNSS.
• Check whether the alleged offence falls within Section 218(1)'s third-proviso list, which needs no sanction.
• If sanction is required, note the date the request for sanction was received by the government — this starts the 120-day clock under Section 218(1) BNSS.

For the advocate:

• Confirm which Magistrate is "empowered under section 210" before filing the Section 175(4) BNSS complaint.
• Cross-check the specific BNS section alleged against the third-proviso list in Section 218(1) BNSS before assuming sanction is required.
• Track the 120-day sanction-decision period carefully; once it lapses without a decision, sanction is deemed granted by operation of Section 218(1)'s second proviso.
• Where the accused is a member of the Armed Forces of the Union, apply Section 218(2) BNSS (previous sanction of the Central Government), not Section 218(1); where the accused is a member of a Force charged with the maintenance of public order, check whether a State Government notification under Section 218(3) BNSS applies sub-section (2) to that class or category.

Frequently asked questions

How do I get police to investigate a complaint against a public servant in India?

Under Section 175(4) BNSS, a Magistrate empowered under Section 210 BNSS may, on receiving a complaint against a public servant arising in the course of discharge of official duties, order an investigation — but only after receiving a report from the officer superior to the public servant, and after considering the public servant's own assertions about the incident. Section 156(3) CrPC contained no distinct provision for this situation.

Is Section 175(4) BNSS a new provision, or does it replace something in the CrPC?

As read, Section 156(3) CrPC gave a Magistrate a general one-line power to order investigation, with no separate text addressing a complaint against a public servant. Section 175(4) BNSS creates a distinct, conditioned procedure for that specific situation with no equivalent sub-provision found in the central text of the CrPC. (In Maharashtra only, a State amendment — Maharashtra Act 33 of 2016 — added provisos to Section 156 CrPC barring a Magistrate from ordering investigation against a public servant for an act done in the discharge of official duties except with previous sanction under Section 197 CrPC or under any law for the time being in force; that is a different mechanism from Section 175(4) BNSS.)

Do I still need government sanction to prosecute a public servant under the new law?

Yes, where the accused is a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from office save by or with the sanction of the Government, and the offence is alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty. Section 218(1) BNSS retains the same core bar as Section 197(1) CrPC: no court can take cognizance without the appropriate government's sanction, subject to listed exceptions.

What happens if the government never decides on my sanction request?

Section 218(1) BNSS's second proviso requires the government to decide within 120 days of receiving the sanction request; if it fails to do so, the sanction is deemed to have been accorded. Section 197 CrPC, as read, contains no such timeline or deemed-sanction mechanism; in Maharashtra only, a State amendment to Sections 156 and 190 CrPC (Maharashtra Act 33 of 2016) had required a sanction decision within ninety days, failing which sanction was deemed accorded.

Are there offences for which no sanction is needed at all?

Yes. Section 218(1)'s third proviso lists offences under specific Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita sections — including 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74 to 79, 143, 199 and 200 — for which no sanction is required. Section 197(1) CrPC's Explanation, inserted in 2013, carried a comparable but differently worded list of Indian Penal Code sections.

Does this procedure apply if the alleged conduct happened before 1 July 2024?

The applicable procedure depends on whether the matter was already pending immediately before the BNSS came into force. See the dedicated transition guide for the full rule under Section 531 BNSS.

Related on Veritect

• Section 197 CrPC vs Section 218 BNSS — Sanction for Prosecution of Public Servants
• Police Won't Register Your FIR? The Remedy Ladder Under BNSS vs CrPC
• Section 200 CrPC vs Section 223 BNSS — Private Complaint Procedure
• Which Law Applies to an Offence Before 1 July 2024
• Discharge Application and Framing of Charge Deadlines: BNSS 250-263
• Timelines in Investigation and Trial: BNSS vs CrPC
• Section 156 CrPC vs Section 175 BNSS — Police Investigation and the Magistrate's Direction
• Sections 177–189 CrPC vs Sections 197–209 BNSS — Place of Inquiry and Trial

Statutory sources

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 175(1)-(4); Section 218(1)-(5) (read from BNSS_2023.md)
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 156(1)-(3); Section 197(1)-(4) (read from CrPC_1973.md)

This guide explains the statutory text of the BNS, BNSS and BSA as enacted. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.