Source: The Hindu 

Introduction 

Recent legal development in Indore where two First Information Reports (FIRs) were registered under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for violating prohibitory orders issued by the District Magistrate under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). These sections correspond to Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), respectively.  

What Led to the Filing of FIRs in Indore? 

• The district administration of Indore issued prohibitory orders on 2nd January, 2025, aimed at making the city beggar-free.  
• Following these orders, two FIRs were registered: 
  • One against a person who gave alms to a beggar 
  • Another against a woman beggar's son who had taken responsibility for preventing her from begging, but she was found begging nonetheless 
• Both FIRs were filed based on complaints from the Begging Eradication Squad officer.  
• The administrative action was intended to discourage both the giving of alms and the act of begging within city limits. 

Can Section 163 Of BNSS Be Invoked for Begging-related Issues? 

• Section 163 of the BNSS empowers a District Magistrate to issue orders only in "urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger when there is sufficient ground for proceeding and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable." 
•  The competent executive magistrate under such circumstances may: 
  • Direct any person to abstain from certain acts 
  • Issue orders to prevent obstruction, annoyance, or injury 
  • Prevent danger to human life, health or safety 
  • Prevent disturbance of public tranquility, riots, or affrays 
• While begging in public may cause annoyance or disturb public tranquility, it cannot reasonably be classified as an "urgent case of nuisance or apprehended danger" as required by the statute.  
• The invocation of Section 163 BNSS for begging-related matters appears legally questionable. 

Why is Direct FIR Registration Improper for Section 223 BNS Violations? 

• The registration of FIRs for violations of Section 223 BNS (corresponding to Section 188 IPC) is explicitly barred by Section 215 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 195 of the CrPC).  
• Specifically: 
  • Section 215(1)(a) of BNSS states that "no Court shall take cognisance (i) of any offence punishable under Sections 206 to 223 (both inclusive but excluding section 209) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023..., except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate or of some other public servant who is authorised by the concerned public servant so to do." 
• This provision creates a procedural requirement that despite the offence under Section 223 BNS being cognizable, the District Magistrate must approach the Court in writing to lodge a complaint. Police reports are barred in such cases, rendering FIR registration improper. 

What Have Courts Ruled Regarding Similar Cases? 

Several judicial precedents establish the impropriety of registering FIRs for violations of orders under Section 188 IPC (now Section 223 BNS): 

• Supreme Court's Interpretation: The Supreme Court has held that Section 195 of the CrPC (Section 215 BNSS) limits the powers of judicial magistrates to take cognizance under Section 190. A charge-sheet on a cognizable offence in such cases is not a complaint but a police report, which is specifically barred. 
• C. Muniappan and others v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010): The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 195 CrPC are mandatory, and non-compliance would vitiate the prosecution. 
• State of U.P. v. Mata Bhikh and Others (1994): The Supreme Court clarified that the object of this section is to protect persons from vexatious prosecutions upon inadequate materials or insufficient grounds by persons actuated by malice, ill-will, or frivolity. 
• Jeevanandham and Others v. State and Another (2018): The Madras High Court explicitly held that a police officer cannot register an FIR for offences falling under Sections 172 to 188 of the IPC (now Sections 206 to 223 BNS). However, police officers can take action when such offences are committed in their presence to prevent further violations. 
• Chhattisgarh High Court Case: In a more recent ruling, the High Court quashed an FIR registered under Section 188 IPC against a medical graduate who failed to inform the Chief Medical Officer of her arrival as required by a District Magistrate's order during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court held that no FIR could be registered for an offence under Section 188 IPC. 

What Is the Correct Procedure for Addressing Violations of Section 163 BNSS Orders? 

• The correct procedure for addressing violations of orders issued under Section 163 BNSS is: 
  • The police should close any FIRs incorrectly registered under Section 223 BNS and inform the District Magistrate accordingly. 
  • If the District Magistrate wishes to proceed with action against violators, they must approach the court in writing as required under Section 215 of the BNSS. 
  • The public servant concerned or their administrative superior must file a written complaint directly with the court. 
  • Police action is limited to situations where the offense is committed in the presence of the officer or where immediate action is required to prevent the commission of such offenses. 

What Alternatives Exist for Addressing Begging-related Concerns? 

Rather than criminalizing begging through FIRs, more appropriate alternatives include: 

• Legislative Options: The State government could initiate amendments to the BNSS to modify the restrictions of Section 215(1) or enact local laws specifically addressing begging. However, converting civil offenses into criminal ones is generally inadvisable. 
• Rehabilitation Focus: Beggars need rehabilitation rather than prosecution. Criminal proceedings against those giving or receiving alms may exacerbate rather than solve the underlying social issues. 
• Social Welfare Approach: Implementing comprehensive social welfare programs to address the root causes of begging would be more effective than punitive measures. 
• Targeted Interventions: Programs focusing on skill development, shelter, and employment opportunities for those engaged in begging would provide sustainable solutions. 

Conclusion 

The registration of FIRs under Section 223 of the BNS for violations of prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 of the BNSS is legally improper and contradicts established judicial precedents. The correct procedure requires the District Magistrate to file a written complaint directly with the court rather than initiating police action through FIRs. While the intent to address begging-related issues may be well-meaning, the approach must conform to legal requirements. Moreover, a rehabilitative rather than punitive approach would better serve the societal objective of addressing begging. Law enforcement agencies should be guided by both the letter of the law and its humanitarian spirit, particularly when dealing with vulnerable populations.