Prayagraj: Noting that senior police officers sometimes try to browbeat magistrates for directing investigation of certain cases, the Allahabad High Court advised judicial heads to make contempt reference.In its order dated Mar 9, a division bench comprising Justice J J Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi said the magistrate should not hesitate in passing necessary orders, merely because a highhanded police officer has caused them inconvenience and in case of pressure from a police officer, the magistrate always had the option to make a contempt reference to the court.The observation came from the court while summarily dismissing a criminal writ petition in a matter concerning registration of FIR in Farrukhabad district. The petitioner had sought a direction to SP, Farrukhabad to decide his representation dated Aug 19, 2025, for lodging FIR in a time-bound manner.Expressing its displeasure over such requests, the high court observed that prayers seeking directions to authorities to decide representations render the court virtually powerless, as authorities assume the court can only ask them to take decisions instead of deciding the matter (lis) itself, which leads to a deluge of writ petitions in which court is not required to decide anything.The court noted that cases in which officer-in-charge of a police station refuses to record information relating to the commission of a cognisable offence under Section 173 (4) Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the informant may send substance of the information in writing and by post to the SP concerned. The court added that on receipt of such information, the SP is obliged, either to investigate the offence or direct investigation by any subordinate. The division bench further clarified that if the SP does not pass orders on an application under section 173 BNSS, the remedy is before the judicial magistrate under Section 175 (3) BNSS. The judicial magistrate may, if there is application supported by an affidavit, order an investigation by the police. The court concluded that remedy for the petitioner in the present case was to move the judicial magistrate concerned through an application under section 174(3) BNSS. The petition was summarily dismissed in view of availability of a statutory alternative remedy. The high court clarified that the petitioner had option to seek registration of FIR by moving the competent magistrate.
