Model Criminal Complaint Against Executive Magistrates: Drafting Under Sections 255, 256, 198 & 127 BNS (Sections 219, 220, 167 & 342 IPC)
1. The Four Penal Pillars Against Errant Magistrates
Prosecuting an administrative officer in their personal capacity requires a rigorous matching of specific factual actions with the corresponding statutory definitions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS):
Section 255 BNS (Sec 219 IPC)
Corruptly Making Order in Judicial Proceeding: Public servant who, in any stage of a proceeding, corruptly or maliciously makes or pronounces any report, order, verdict, or decision which he knows to be contrary to law. Punishment: Up to 7 years imprisonment, or fine, or both.
Section 256 BNS (Sec 220 IPC)
Commitment for Confinement Contrary to Law: Public servant having legal authority to commit persons, who corruptly or maliciously commits any person to confinement in exercise of that authority, knowing that it is contrary to law. Punishment: Up to 7 years imprisonment, or fine, or both.
Section 198 BNS (Sec 167 IPC)
Framing Incorrect Document to Cause Injury: Public servant charged with preparing or framing any document/electronic record, who frames it incorrectly with intent to cause injury to any person. Punishment: Up to 3 years imprisonment, or fine, or both.
Section 127 BNS (Sec 342 IPC)
Wrongful Confinement: Wrongfully restraining any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribed limits without legal authority. Punishment: Up to 1 year imprisonment, or fine, or both.
Procedural Roadmap: Filing Private Criminal Complaint Against Errant Magistrates
Figure 2: Step-by-step procedural progression from serving the civil injunction to the issuance of criminal summons by the CJM.
2. Complete Model Criminal Complaint Before the CJM / JMIC
Below is the complete, production-grade model draft formatted for filing before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) or Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMIC), tailored to incorporate the procedural requirements under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023:
AT [CITY / DISTRICT], [STATE]
(Under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 / Section 200 Cr.P.C.)
Son of [Father's Name],
Resident of [Full Residential Address],
[City, District, State].
Sub-Divisional Magistrate / Executive Magistrate,
[Sub-Division / Tehsil / District Name],
Having Office at [Official Address].
(Accused in personal capacity as well as under color of office)
2. [NAME OF PRIVATE COLLUDING RESPONDENT]
Son of [Father's Name],
Resident of [Full Residential Address].
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. Parties to the Complaint:
That the Complainant is a law-abiding citizen of India residing at the address mentioned above, carrying on lawful business/occupation, and holding settled peaceful title and lawful possession over the subject immovable property situated at [Khasra/Plot No., Location Description]. Accused No. 1 is functioning as an Executive Magistrate / Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who has acted completely outside the four corners of his statutory charter with corrupt and malicious intent to cause wrongful loss to the Complainant and wrongful gain to Accused No. 2.
2. Factual Matrix & Knowledge of Pre-existing Rights:
That the Complainant is in settled physical possession of the said property. A civil suit regarding the same subject matter was already *sub judice* [under judicial consideration] before the competent Civil Court titled [Complainant v. Private Respondent, Civil Suit No. ___/Year], wherein an interim stay/temporary injunction had already been passed in favor of the Complainant on [Date]. A certified copy of the said injunction order was duly served upon Accused No. 1 via written representation dated [Date], duly acknowledged under Diary No. [Number] by his official reader.
3. Colorable Exercise of Authority & Fabricated Records:
That notwithstanding the express written knowledge of the competent Civil Court's binding injunction order, Accused No. 1, acting in active connivance with Accused No. 2, maliciously initiated parallel preventive proceedings. Accused No. 1 deliberately authored and passed an order dated [Date], knowingly contrary to law, falsely declaring that the Complainant was dispossessed, or directing attachment/ouster without issuing statutory show-cause notice, and without any genuine apprehension of breach of peace on record.
4. Specific Commission of Penal Offences:
- Offence under Section 255 BNS (Sec 219 IPC): Accused No. 1, being a public servant in a proceeding stage, corruptly and maliciously made and pronounced an order/decision which he knew to be contrary to law and contrary to the judicial injunction operating on the field.
- Offence under Section 256 BNS (Sec 220 IPC): Accused No. 1, having legal authority to commit persons, corruptly and maliciously directed the detention / restraint / coercive action against the Complainant knowing that it was contrary to law.
- Offence under Section 198 BNS (Sec 167 IPC): Accused No. 1 willfully framed and prepared incorrect official and order-sheet records with the knowledge that it would cause injury to the Complainant.
- Offence under Section 127 BNS (Sec 342 IPC): Accused No. 1 caused the Complainant to be wrongfully confined/restrained through coercive police orders without the due process of law.
SPECIFIC PLEAS ON THE NON-APPLICABILITY OF SANCTION UNDER SECTION 218 BNSS / SECTION 197 CR.P.C.:
5. Absence of Reasonable Nexus to Official Duty:
That the bar of prior sanction under Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 197 Cr.P.C.) has no application to the facts of the present case. Fabricating false records, deliberately defying superior civil court injunctions, and weaponizing executive machinery for private collateral purposes can never form part of the legitimate "discharge of official duty." As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Choudhury Parveen Sultana v. State of West Bengal, (2009) 3 SCC 398 and K. Kalimuthu v. State, (2005) 4 SCC 512, where there is no reasonable nexus between the crime and the duty, the protective umbrella of sanction ceases to exist.
6. Subversion of Fundamental Rights (Articles 14 & 21):
That sovereign immunity or statutory protection cannot be claimed for gross constitutional violations. Depriving a citizen of his liberty or property without due process under the guise of magistracy constitutes an *ultra vires* [acting beyond legal power] act committed in an individual and personal capacity, rendering Accused No. 1 directly answerable to penal law.
7. Sanction is a Matter of Trial:
That at the stage of taking cognizance under Section 223 BNSS / Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. and issuance of process, the question of sanction cannot be invoked as a threshold bar to stifle a *prima facie* [on the face of it] genuine complaint where clear allegations of malice and jurisdictional excess are pleaded (Devinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, (2016) 12 SCC 112).
PRAYER:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
- Take cognizance of the offences committed by the Accused persons under Sections 255, 256, 198, and 127 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 219, 220, 167, and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860);
- Record the preliminary statement of the Complainant and his witnesses under Section 223 BNSS / Section 200 Cr.P.C.;
- Issue summons / warrants against the Accused persons to face trial in accordance with law; and
- Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
DATED: [DD/MM/2026]
Through Counsel:
[ADVOCATE NAME & ENROLMENT NO.]
[Chamber Address & Contact Details]
VERIFICATION
I, the Complainant above-named, do hereby verify that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 7 of the accompanying complaint are true and correct to my personal knowledge, belief, and official records, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. Can an Executive Magistrate be sent to prison under Section 255 BNS?
Yes. Section 255 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita explicitly provides for rigorous or simple imprisonment extending up to seven years. When proven that an order was authored corruptly or maliciously with knowledge that it violated statutory law or judicial injunctions, the criminal court must impose penal sentence without executive immunity.
2. How does the Complainant prove "Corrupt or Malicious Intent"?
Corrupt or malicious intent is proved through: (a) service receipts showing the officer knew of a superior court's stay order; (b) undue haste, such as passing ex parte attachment orders on the same day without notice; (c) refusal to accept replies or grant personal hearings; and (d) evidence of collusion with the private adversary.
3. Is a preliminary inquiry under Section 223(1) BNSS mandatory before summoning?
Under the proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS, the Magistrate must give an opportunity of being heard to the proposed accused before taking cognizance. This makes robust documentary evidence - such as certified copies of injunctions, diary numbers, and order-sheets - indispensable so that the officer cannot defeat cognizance at the pre-summoning hearing.