Case Summary: XXX v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2026) |Scope and Interpretation of Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

The Supreme Court in XXX v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2026) delivered a landmark ruling interpreting Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which introduces procedural safeguards before directing an investigation against public servants.

The case arose from allegations of serious sexual offences against police officers and raised important questions regarding the scope of judicial powers, the mandatory nature of statutory procedures under BNSS, and the limits of writ jurisdiction when remedies before a Magistrate are pending. Clarifying the relationship between Sections 175(3) and 175(4) BNSS, the Court held that the provision is neither standalone nor directory, and must be read harmoniously to balance accountability of public servants with protection against frivolous prosecution.

Title of the Case: XXX v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 88

Court: Supreme Court of India

Judges: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan

Date of Judgment: 27 January 2026

Facts of the Case

The appellant, a woman involved in a property dispute, alleged that she was subjected to sexual assault and rape by three police officers on separate occasions in January 2022 and August 2022.

• First incident (January 2022): A police officer allegedly visited her residence under the pretext of discussing the property dispute and raped her.
• Second incident (January 2022): A senior police officer, to whom she complained about the first incident, allegedly behaved inappropriately with her.
• Third incident (August 2022): Another senior officer allegedly raped her at an isolated location while pretending to help her with the earlier complaints.

Following the second incident, the appellant submitted a complaint to the Superintendent of Police. A preliminary report dated 11 October 2022, prepared by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, concluded that the allegations were false.

After a change in police leadership in September 2024, the appellant renewed her efforts:

• She submitted a written complaint to the Station House Officer.
• She filed a complaint under Section 173(4) BNSS before the District Police Chief.
• She approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) under Section 210 read with Section 173(4) of the BNSS, seeking directions for the registration of an FIR.

Invoking Section 175(4) BNSS, the JMFC called for a report from the superior police officer instead of immediately directing registration of an FIR.

Proceedings Before the High Court

While the application before the JMFC was still pending, the appellant approached the Kerala High Court under Article 226, alleging violation of the principles laid down in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. (2014).

A. Single Judge’s Decision

The Single Judge:

• Held that Section 175(4) BNSS was directory, not mandatory.
• Ruled that alleged acts of rape could never be considered acts done in discharge of official duty.
• Directed the JMFC to proceed without following Section 175(4), resulting in an order directing registration of an FIR.

B. Division Bench’s Decision

On appeal by the accused police officer, the Division Bench:

• Set aside the Single Judge’s judgment.
• Held that judicial intervention was premature, as the application under BNSS was still pending before the JMFC.
• Emphasised that statutory remedies must be exhausted before invoking Article 226.

Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

The Court framed the following questions:

1. Whether Section 175(4) BNSS is a standalone provision or must be read in conjunction with Section 175(3)?
2. What procedure must a Magistrate follow when allegations are made against a public servant for acts allegedly committed in the discharge of official duty?
3. Whether the Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction by intervening under Article 226 while the Magistrate proceedings were pending?
4. Whether the alleged acts of sexual assault could be considered acts done in discharge of official duty?

Analysis by the Supreme Court

Lalita Kumari and Its Continuing Relevance

The Court reaffirmed that Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., mandates registration of FIR when information discloses a cognizable offence, with limited exceptions permitting preliminary inquiry. However, it clarified that Lalita Kumari dealt with police obligations under Section 154 CrPC (Section 173 BNSS), whereas the present case concerned judicial oversight under BNSS, which has introduced new statutory safeguards.

Thus, Lalita Kumari could not be mechanically applied to proceedings under Sections 173 and 175 BNSS.

Nature of Section 175(4) BNSS

The Court undertook a detailed statutory interpretation and held:

• Section 175(4) is neither a standalone provision nor a proviso to Section 175(3).
• It operates as a procedural qualification upon the Magistrate’s power to order an investigation.
• The power to direct investigation flows primarily from Section 175(3), while Section 175(4) adds additional safeguards when the accused is a public servant.

The Court rejected the argument that Section 175(4) could be invoked independently, warning that such an interpretation would:

• Allow complainants to bypass the mandatory step of approaching the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4).
• Undermine the affidavit requirement laid down in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015).

Affidavit Requirement

Although Section 175(4) uses the word “complaint”, the Court held that:

• The term must be read contextually, not literally.
• A complaint under Section 175(4) must be in writing and supported by an affidavit, just like an application under Section 175(3).

The Court reasoned that it would be illogical to require affidavits for complaints against private individuals but not against public servants, especially when additional safeguards are intended to protect them from vexatious litigation.

Whether Sexual Assault Can Be “In Discharge of Official Duty”

The Court adopted a functional and contextual test, holding that:

• The inquiry is not whether the act itself is lawful, but whether the alleged offence arose in the course of official interaction.
• Since the appellant’s own allegations showed that the police officers came into contact with her because of official duties, Section 175(4) was prima facie attracted.

Importantly, the Court clarified that this does not grant immunity nor pre-judge guilt; it merely triggers procedural safeguards at the investigation stage.

Jurisdiction of the High Court Under Article 226

The Supreme Court strongly disapproved of the Single Judge’s intervention, holding that:

• When a statutory remedy is actively pending, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked.
• The Single Judge effectively pre-empted the Magistrate’s statutory discretion, which was impermissible.
• The Division Bench was correct in restoring procedural discipline.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court:

• Dismissed the appeal.
• Upheld the Division Bench’s judgment.
• Affirmed that the Magistrate must proceed strictly in accordance with Sections 173 and 175 BNSS.

Clarified the correct legal position governing complaints against public servants under the new criminal procedure regime.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in XXX v. State of Kerala (2026 INSC 88) has laid down a measured, principled, and procedurally coherent framework for dealing with complaints against public servants under the BNSS. While acknowledging the gravity of allegations such as sexual assault, the Court underscored that procedural safeguards are not shields of immunity but instruments of fairness.

By insisting on harmonious construction, affidavit-backed complaints, and judicial restraint, the judgment ensures that the newly enacted BNSS functions as a balanced code, preserving both individual dignity and institutional integrity.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams