The Allahabad High Court said magistrates should not feel hesitant in passing necessary orders even if high-handed police officers cause inconvenience, and urged judges to initiate contempt proceedings when facing intimidation from any attempts to undermine their authority.
The Allahabad High Court advised judicial magistrates in Uttar Pradesh to file a contempt reference if they experience intimidation from police officers.
A Division Bench comprising Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi acknowledged that magistrates often face pressure from the police when they issue directions that are considered “uncomfortable” for them.
The Bench said,
“We are aware of the fact that in the districts, applications, sometimes, not always, made to Magistrates, which direct investigations to be made by the Police, particularly uncomfortable ones, lead to frowns by what are called superior officers of the Police, who resort to measures to browbeat Magistrates,”
The Court stressed that such tactics must not deter magistrates from carrying out their duties.
The Bench added,
“The Magistrate also should not feel hesitant in passing necessary orders, merely because at some point of time, a high-handed police officer has caused some inconvenience to the Magistrate. If, in fact, any kind of embarrassment or pressure from any police officer is faced by the Magistrate, it is always open to him/her to make a contempt reference to this Court,”
The Court highlighted the difficulties magistrates encounter when they order investigations into criminal complaints previously ignored by police.
The Bench was considering a petition seeking an order directing the Superintendent of Police in Farrukhabad to act on a representation submitted to the petitioner in August 2025 concerning the non-registration of a criminal offence.
It observed that petitions asking courts to direct authorities to decide representations create the impression that the judiciary is powerless.
The court observed,
“Prayers made by litigants and directions often issued by this Court to authorities to decide representations made by litigants have rendered this Court virtually powerless, where the authorities seem to think that all we can do under Article 226 of the Constitution is to ask them to decide cases or take decisions, instead of deciding the lis ourselves and passing orders. Quite apart, this leads to a deluge of writ petitions being instituted before this Court, where, we are not required to decide anything. This writ petition is an instance of the same kind.”
The Bench noted the statutory route under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). If a station house officer refuses to record information about a cognisable offence under Section 173(4) BNSS, the complainant may appeal to the Superintendent of Police. Should the S.P. also fail to act, the judicial remedy lies with the Judicial Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS.
The Magistrate, on an application backed by an affidavit under Section 173(4) BNSS and after any inquiry and receipt of a police report, may direct the police to investigate.
Accordingly, the Court said the petitioner’s appropriate course was to apply to the Judicial Magistrate under Section 174(3) BNSS to seek registration of an FIR.
The Bench therefore dismissed the petition while clarifying that the petitioner retains the statutory remedy under the BNSS to pursue FIR registration through the competent Magistrate.
Advocate Hanuman Prasad Mishra appeared for the petitioner, and Additional Government Advocate Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal represented the State.
The court’s remarks follow earlier observations by a single-judge of the High Court that police officers in Uttar Pradesh frequently pressure judges, especially Chief Judicial Magistrates, to issue particular orders.
Case Title: Sandeep Audichya v State of UP and Others