Court holds forwarding of citizen's representation for lawful action does not constitute criminal misconduct or conspiracy; consequences of alleged act must have direct nexus to offence for jurisdiction under BNSS Section 199
In a significant judgment on territorial jurisdiction and abuse of process, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed against a Cabinet Minister of Uttar Pradesh, holding that the Magistrate at Mathura lacked territorial jurisdiction to order investigation into allegations of interference in a pending criminal investigation.
The revisionist, Sanatan Dharm Rakshapeeth, had filed an application under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, before the court at Mathura, seeking registration of an FIR against Suresh Khanna (the Cabinet Minister) for allegedly interfering in a criminal investigation being conducted at Meerut. The investigation related to a property dispute at Vrindavan, Mathura, involving forged documents and criminal conspiracy charges against the Minister's associate.
The Core Allegation and Disputed Letter:
The revisionist alleged that on July 16, 2024, the Cabinet Minister wrote a letter from Lucknow to the Additional Chief Secretary of the Home Department, forwarding a representation made by the wife of the accused in the Meerut case. The representation sought verification of disputed signatures through a reputed forensic laboratory. The revisionist contended this letter constituted interference and delay in the Meerut investigation, particularly when the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhopal, was recommended instead of the State Laboratory at Agra.
Court's Critical Findings on Jurisdiction:
Justice Vikram D. Chauhan, while examining the application, made several critical observations:
1. Jurisdictional Limitation of Magistrate: The court clarified that the power of a Magistrate under Section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023, is "confined to permissible limits prescribed under Chapter XIV of BNSS, 2023." The jurisdiction cannot extend to offences wholly outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction. The court held that "a Magistrate who could not himself try or commit the offence for want of territorial jurisdiction is, equally incompetent to set the investigative machinery of police in motion for an offence wholly outside that jurisdiction."
2. Section 199 BNSS Requirements Not Satisfied: The court examined Section 199 of BNSS, 2023, which permits trial where "an act is done or consequence ensues" within territorial jurisdiction. The court established that for this section to apply, several essential elements must exist: (a) a positive act or omission forming part of the alleged offence; (b) the act must constitute an offence; and (c) a legally relevant consequence must have ensued.
The court emphasized that "the consequence must be a part and parcel of offence, meaning thereby it must complete the definition of alleged offence as required under the law." Merely remote, incidental, or collateral consequences would not confer jurisdiction.
3. No Offence Under Prevention of Corruption Act: Examining the allegation under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (criminal misconduct), the court found that the mere act of forwarding a representation requesting lawful action does not constitute criminal misconduct. The application did not allege that the Cabinet Minister dishonestly misappropriated property or intentionally enriched himself illicitly—the essential ingredients of Section 13(2).
4. No Criminal Conspiracy Established: The court rejected the claim that the act constituted criminal conspiracy under Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The court observed that "an elected representative may forward such grievance to competent department for consideration and action in accordance with law." The court held: "Mere forwarding of a citizen's grievance (in the absence of any positive or coercive direction in favour of the person making the representation), does not disclose an agreement to commit an illegal act or to procure an illegal result."
5. No Nexus with Alleged Consequences: The court found that the consequences alleged—"delay and interference in investigation"—had no direct nexus with the letter written by the Cabinet Minister. The subsequent letter (dated October 24, 2024) directing further investigation was issued by the Under-Secretary, not the Cabinet Minister. Moreover, this letter came after the charge-sheet had already been filed and cognizance taken by the Meerut court on October 7, 2024. Therefore, no interference or delay could be attributed to the Cabinet Minister's letter.
6. Location of Property Not Sufficient: Rejecting the revisionist's argument that the property's location at Mathura conferred jurisdiction, the court held: "The fact that representation or subsequent correspondence is indirectly & remotely related to property at Mathura does not establish that any offence under Sections 45 or 49 BNS, or any legally relevant consequence thereof, ensued at Mathura."
Important Legal Principles Established:
The judgment reinforces several crucial principles:
- - Statutory Power is Not an Offence: The exercise of statutory powers of further investigation under Section 173(8) BNSS, 2023, cannot itself constitute an offence, nor can forwarding a request for such lawful action amount to instigation or conspiracy.
- - Presumption of Official Acts: There is a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed, and the initial burden lies on the person challenging the order.
- - Direct Nexus Requirement: For territorial jurisdiction under Section 199, the "consequence" must have a direct, not remote or incidental, connection to the alleged offence.
- - Protection of Elected Representatives: The court acknowledged that citizens may approach elected representatives for redressal of grievances, and such representatives may forward these to competent departments for lawful action without incurring criminal liability.
Conclusion:
Justice Chauhan concluded: "In view of aforesaid, trial court committed no error in rejecting the application of petitioner under section 175 (3) of BNSS, 2023 by impugned order dated 6.6.2025 and as such calls for no interference of this court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction."
This judgment is significant as it establishes clear boundaries on the invocation of criminal law machinery, protects public officials from frivolous prosecutions based on routine administrative acts, and reinforces the principle that criminal prosecution requires foundational facts constituting an actual offence, not mere suspicion or disagreement with administrative decisions.
Bottom Line:
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), Section 175(3) - Magistrate's jurisdiction to order investigation is confined to offences within territorial jurisdiction under Chapter XIV BNSS. Consequences of an act must have a direct nexus to the alleged offence for jurisdiction under Section 199 BNSS to apply.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS:
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023: Sections 2(q), 2(24), 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 60, 61, 175(1), 175(3), 197, 199, 210; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2), 17A; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023: Sections 45, 49, 60, 61; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 173(8)
Sanatan Dharm Rakshapeeth v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id 2972594
