Jaipur, A complaint arising out of a dispute and a series of cross-FIRs ended up dragging serving police officers into criminal proceedings. But the Rajasthan High Court found that the process itself had gone wrong, stepping in to prevent what it saw as a mechanical invocation of criminal law.
A bench of Justice Farjand Ali allowed a revision petition filed by four police officials, including a Deputy Superintendent of Police, and set aside an order directing the registration of an FIR against them. The Court held that such directions cannot be issued routinely without a proper application of judicial mind.
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur set aside the order passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar, which directed the registration of an FIR against the petitioners under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, 2023.
Observing that criminal law cannot be set in motion mechanically, the Court stressed that judicial orders must reflect due consideration of facts and circumstances, especially when allegations are made against public servants.
The case traces back to a chain of criminal proceedings between the parties. An FIR was first registered in August 2025 against Tek Chand and others under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the SC/ST Act. Later a charge-sheet was filed after investigation.
Tek Chand later lodged a counter FIR in September 2025 against the opposite side. However, after investigation, the police submitted a negative final report, indicating that the complaint appeared to have been filed with an oblique motive.
Thereafter Tek Chand approached the Special Court via a private complaint, seeking action against the present petitioners, who are serving police officials. Acting on the complaint, the Special Judge directed the registration of an FIR against them.
The High Court, however, found that the order was passed without recording adequate reasons and without considering the broader factual background, including the earlier FIRs and the negative final report.
The Court noted that powers under Section 175(3) of the BNSS must be exercised with caution and cannot be invoked casually or routinely. A direction to register an FIR, particularly against public officials, requires clear judicial satisfaction and cannot be issued as a matter of course.
The judgment underscores that criminal proceedings should not become tools of harassment in private disputes, and courts must guard against the misuse of the legal process.
In setting aside the impugned order, the Court reaffirmed that the power to direct registration of an FIR carries serious consequences and must be exercised with due application of mind.