UP Police browbeating judicial magistrates? Allahabad High Court tells judges to seek contempt of court action

The Allahabad High Court has advised judicial magistrates in Uttar Pradesh to make a reference for initiating contempt of court proceedings if they face any intimidation from police officers [Sandeep Audichya v State of UP and Others]

A Division Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi acknowledged that the magistrates face pressure from the police when they pass any “uncomfortable” directions to them.

“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 Bench said.

The Court emphasised that such intimidation should not prevent the magistrates from performing their legal duties

“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,” it said.

The Court was highlighting the pressures magistrates face when they pass orders for investigation into criminal complaints earlier ignored by police.

The Bench was hearing a plea seeking a direction to the Superintendent of Police of Farrukhabad for a decision on a representation made to the petitioner in August 2025. It was related to non-registration of a criminal offence.

The Bench said that such petitions seeking directions for decision on representations by the authorities make the Courts appear powerless.

“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.”

It noted that under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), if the officer-in-charge of a police station refuses to record an information relating to the commission of a cognisable offence, it is open to the informant to write to the Superintendent of Police.

“If the S.P. is also derelict in the sense that he/she does not pass orders on an application under Section 173 BNSS, the remedy is before the Judicial Magistrate under sub-Section (3) of Section 175 BNSS. The Judicial Magistrate, if moved through an application supported by an affidavit under sub-Section (4) Section 173 BNSS, after making such inquiry, as he/she thinks necessary and submission of a report by the police officer in the matter, may order investigation by the Police. In the circumstances, the remedy of the petitioner is to move the Judicial Magistrate concerned through an application under Section 174(3) BNSS,” the Court said.

It, therefore, dismissed the plea with a clarification that the petitioner shall have his remedy under the BNSS open to him to seek registration of the First Information Report (FIR) by moving the competent Magistrate.

Advocate Hanuman Prasad Mishra represented the petitioner.

Additional Government Advocate Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal represented the State.

Earlier, a single-judge of the High Court also had flagged that police officers in UP regularly pressurise judges, particularly Chief Judicial Magistrates (CJMs), to pass specific orders.

[Read Order]