Section 156 CrPC vs Section 175 BNSS — Police Investigation and the Magistrate's Direction

In India, Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) on 1 July 2024. The police power to investigate is unchanged; a Magistrate's order to investigate (old Section 156(3)) now needs an affidavit-backed application, prior recourse to the Superintendent of Police, and the police officer's submission.

At a glance

Section 175 creates no offence, so the First Schedules to the CrPC and BNSS do not classify it.

What changed

• Modified — Section 175(1). The body repeats Section 156(1) word for word except that "Chapter XIII" becomes "Chapter XIV"; both chapters are headed "Jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in Inquiries and Trials". A proviso is added: "considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the Superintendent of Police may require the Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the case."
• Identical — Section 175(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."
• Modified — Section 175(3). Section 156(3) said only: "Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned." Section 175(3) refers to Section 210 instead of Section 190 and adds three conditions: the Magistrate acts "after considering the application supported by an affidavit made under sub-section (4) of section 173", "after making such inquiry as he thinks necessary", and after the "submission made in this regard by the police officer".
• New — Section 175(4). A 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) a report of the facts and circumstances from the officer superior to that public servant and (b) consideration of the public servant's assertions about the situation.
• Expanded — neighbour, Section 173(4) (old Section 154(3)). The written complaint to the Superintendent of Police is kept; "this Code" becomes "this Sanhita" and the sub-section ends with "failing which such aggrieved person may make an application to the Magistrate". Full treatment is on the Section 154 CrPC vs Section 173 BNSS page.
• State amendment — note. The CrPC text records provisos added to Section 156 for Maharashtra by Maharashtra Act 33 of 2016 (previous sanction before an order against a public servant). Whether any State has amended Section 175 BNSS was not checked.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 156(3) CrPC (repealed from 1 July 2024):

(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned.

Extract, Section 175(1) proviso, (3) and (4) BNSS:

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.

(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.

How it works — the steps

1. Police investigate on their own (s.175(1)). The officer in charge may investigate any cognizable case that a local court could inquire into or try under Chapter XIV, without a Magistrate's order. Non-cognizable cases need a Magistrate's order (s.174(2)).
2. Senior officers (proviso; s.30). The Superintendent of Police may require a Deputy Superintendent to investigate. Section 30 BNSS separately lets superior officers exercise a station officer's powers throughout their area.
3. Refusal to record information (s.173(4)). The aggrieved person posts the substance of the information to the Superintendent of Police, who investigates or directs investigation if a cognizable offence is disclosed.
4. Application to the Magistrate (s.175(3)). If that fails, the person applies to a Magistrate empowered under Section 210 (a Magistrate of the first class, or a second-class Magistrate specially empowered). The application must be supported by an affidavit; the Magistrate may inquire as necessary and must consider the police officer's submission before ordering investigation.
5. Public servant (s.175(4)). If the complaint concerns a public servant's act in the course of official duties, the Magistrate also calls for a report from the officer superior to that public servant and considers the public servant's version before ordering investigation.
6. Pre-cognizance, not cognizance. An order under Section 175(3) sends the matter into the police investigation that ends in a report under Section 193 BNSS. If the Magistrate instead takes cognizance on a complaint, Chapter XVI applies, and any investigation is the limited one under Section 225(1), "for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding".

What this means in practice

For a complainant or victim

• Keep proof of three things: the information given at the police station (s.173(1)), the letter posted to the Superintendent of Police (s.173(4)), and the Superintendent's failure to act. Om Prakash Ambadkar (para 31) reads Section 175(3) as requiring a copy of the Section 173(4) application to be filed with the affidavit.
• Swear the affidavit in the form Section 333 BNSS requires: before a Judge or Magistrate, a Commissioner of Oaths or a notary, separating facts within your own knowledge from facts you believe, with the grounds of belief (XXX v. State of Kerala, para 41).
• Where the evidence is already with you, the Magistrate may prefer to proceed on the complaint. Om Prakash Ambadkar (para 24) holds that the Magistrate need not direct police investigation merely because a Section 156(3) application is filed with a complaint under Section 200 CrPC (now Section 223 BNSS).

For the police officer

• Section 175(3) requires the Magistrate to consider your "submission". Om Prakash Ambadkar (para 35) reads this as placing greater accountability on the officer responsible for registering FIRs under Section 173, so the reasons for refusal should be on record.

For a public servant named in a complaint

• If the act complained of arose in the course of official duties, Section 175(4) entitles you to have your version considered, after a report from your superior, before investigation is ordered. XXX v. State of Kerala (para 40) describes this as the first of two tiers of protection; the second is previous sanction under Section 218(1) BNSS before cognizance.

For the advocate

• Sakiri Vasu (paras 25-27) relegates a person whose FIR is not registered to the police and Magistrate remedies rather than a writ or Section 482 petition; on a reading of the text, those remedies are now Section 173(4) and Section 175(3).
• A Magistrate's order that simply forwards the application to the police, without the inquiry and police submission Section 175(3) contemplates, is open to challenge on a reading of the text; Om Prakash Ambadkar (para 25) says the Magistrate "is, therefore, not supposed to act merely as a Post Office".

Judgments that still matter

Suresh Chand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 257 (2001 INSC 19) — 10 January 2001. In a judgment delivered by K.T. Thomas J. (with R.P. Sethi J.), the Court held that any Judicial Magistrate may order investigation under Section 156(3) before taking cognizance, need not then examine the complainant on oath, and may direct the police to register an FIR, because "There is nothing illegal in doing so." An investigation so ordered is the ordinary Chapter XII investigation ending in a police report; an investigation under Section 202 after cognizance is of a limited nature (report pp. 261-262; the text shows no paragraph numbers). Section 175(3) BNSS keeps the words "order such an investigation as above-mentioned", so on a reading of the text the pre-cognizance character of the order is unchanged.

Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., [2007] 12 S.C.R. 1100 (2007 INSC 1243) — 7 December 2007. A.K. Mathur and Markandey Katju JJ. held that Section 156(3), "though briefly worded", includes implied powers to order registration of an FIR, to direct a proper investigation and to monitor it (paras 17, 24), though the Magistrate "cannot investigate himself" (para 27). The Court set out the order of remedies: the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) or an officer under Section 36, then the Magistrate under Section 156(3), with a complaint under Section 200 also available, and said High Courts should ordinarily not entertain writ or Section 482 petitions for this grievance (paras 25-27). On a reading of the text, the same order now runs through Section 173(4) and Section 175(3) BNSS.

Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., [2015] 4 S.C.R. 108 (2015 INSC 239) — 19 March 2015. In a judgment by Dipak Misra J. (with Prafulla C. Pant J.), the Court held that Section 156(3) "warrants application of judicial mind" (para 26), that applications must be "supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant", and that there must be prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3), spelt out in the application with supporting documents (para 27). It quashed an FIR registered on a Magistrate's direction against bank officers (para 31). Om Prakash Ambadkar (paras 32-34) treats Section 175(3) BNSS as codifying these requirements.

Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra, [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1469 (2025 INSC 139) — 16 January 2025. J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan JJ. set aside a Section 156(3) order (para 37) and set out the changes made by Section 175 BNSS (paras 28-35), noting that Section 175(1) is in pari materia with Section 156(1) save for the proviso (para 29). The changes in Section 175(3) "merely codify the procedural practices and safeguards which have been introduced by judicial decisions" (para 34).

XXX v. State of Kerala, 2026 INSC 88 — 27 January 2026. In a judgment by Dipankar Datta J. (with Manmohan J.), the Court held that recourse to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) is "a mandatory precondition" to the Magistrate under Section 175(3) (para 31.1). Section 175(4) is neither a standalone provision nor a proviso; the two sub-sections are read together, with sub-section (4) a procedural restraint (paras 36-38, 42-43). A Section 175(4) complaint does not include an oral complaint and must be supported by an affidavit (paras 39, 44). Where the act bears no reasonable nexus to official duty, the general Section 175(3) procedure applies (para 46.3); if the superior officer does not report within a reasonable time, the Magistrate need not wait indefinitely (para 48).

Which law applies to your case

Section 531(2)(a) BNSS provides that an "appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation" pending immediately before the BNSS came into force is disposed of, continued, held or made under the CrPC "as if this Sanhita had not come into force". On a reading of that clause, a Section 156(3) application pending on 1 July 2024, and an investigation already running on that date, stay under the CrPC; an application first made on or after that date goes under Section 175(3) BNSS even for an older incident. The Act defining the offence is a separate question: see which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNSS equivalent of Section 156(3) CrPC? Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaces Section 156(3) CrPC. A Magistrate empowered under Section 210 BNSS may still order the police to investigate a cognizable case, but only after considering an application supported by an affidavit made under Section 173(4), making such inquiry as the Magistrate thinks necessary, and considering the police officer's submission.

Can I go straight to the Magistrate if the police refuse to register my FIR? No. In XXX v. State of Kerala (2026 INSC 88, para 31.1) the Supreme Court held that approaching the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS is a mandatory precondition to invoking the Magistrate under Section 175(3). Section 173(4) itself provides for an application to the Magistrate only "failing which", that is, where the Superintendent does not act.

Does an application to the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS need an affidavit? Yes. Section 175(3) BNSS refers to an application supported by an affidavit, a requirement the Supreme Court first laid down for Section 156(3) CrPC in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015 INSC 239, para 27). XXX v. State of Kerala (para 41) holds that the affidavit must meet Section 333 BNSS: it must be sworn before a Judge or Magistrate, a Commissioner of Oaths or a notary, and separate facts known personally from facts believed.

What is new in Section 175(4) BNSS about public servants? Section 175(4) BNSS, which has no counterpart in Section 156 CrPC, says a Magistrate may order investigation on a complaint against a public servant arising in the course of official duties subject to a report from the officer superior to that public servant and after considering the public servant's own version. XXX v. State of Kerala (paras 39, 44) holds that such a complaint must be in writing and supported by an affidavit.

Can a Magistrate who receives a private complaint send it to the police under Section 175(3)? Yes, before taking cognizance. In Suresh Chand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh ([2001] 1 S.C.R. 257) the Supreme Court held that a Magistrate may order investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC before taking cognizance, need not examine the complainant on oath, and may direct registration of an FIR. Once cognizance is taken, the limited inquiry under Section 202 CrPC, now Section 225 BNSS, applies instead.

Can the Superintendent of Police hand an investigation to a Deputy Superintendent? Yes. The new proviso to Section 175(1) BNSS says that, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the Superintendent of Police may require the Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the case. Section 156(1) CrPC had no such proviso. Section 30 BNSS, like Section 36 CrPC, also lets superior officers exercise a station officer's powers throughout their area.

Should I file a writ petition in the High Court if the police do not register an FIR? Ordinarily not. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. ([2007] 12 S.C.R. 1100, paras 25-27) the Supreme Court said the remedy lies first with the Superintendent of Police and then with the Magistrate, and that High Courts should ordinarily not entertain writ petitions for this grievance. Under the BNSS those remedies are Section 173(4) and Section 175(3), and XXX v. State of Kerala (2026 INSC 88, para 31.1) holds the first is a mandatory precondition to the second.

Which law applies to a Section 156(3) application filed before 1 July 2024? Section 531(2)(a) BNSS says an application or investigation pending immediately before the BNSS came into force is disposed of or continued under the CrPC as if the BNSS had not come into force. On a reading of that clause, a Section 156(3) application pending on 1 July 2024 is decided under the CrPC, and an application first made on or after that date is made under Section 175(3) BNSS.

Related

• Section 154 CrPC vs Section 173 BNSS — First Information Report
• Police refuse to register an FIR: remedies under the BNSS and CrPC
• Complaint against a public servant: BNSS 175 and 218 vs CrPC 197
• Section 200 CrPC — private complaint
• Section 173 CrPC — police report
• CrPC to BNSS master table
• Sections 133–143 CrPC vs Sections 152–162 BNSS — Magistrate's Orders for Removal of Public Nuisance

Sources

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 30, 173, 174, 175, 210, 225, 333 and 531.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (India Code text): Sections 36, 154, 155, 156 (with the Maharashtra State amendment), 190 and 202.
• Judgments read in full text: Suresh Chand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2001_1_257_263_EN.md); Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2007_12_1100_1112_EN.md); Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015_4_108_136_EN.md); Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra (2025_1_1469_1490_EN.md); XXX v. State of Kerala (Diary_8626-2025_Judgment.md).

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.