If you're dealing with a recurring issue and need to understand the legal process for obtaining a police report through either Section 156(3) or Section 202 of the CrPC, now corresponding to Section 175(3) and Section 225 respectively under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, it's important to understand that these two provisions serve distinct purposes at different stages of the criminal complaint process, and knowing which one applies to your specific situation is essential to pursuing the correct legal route.

Section 175(3) BNSS (Section 156(3) CrPC) is invoked at the pre-cognizance stage, meaning before the Magistrate has taken formal cognizance of an offence, and it empowers the Magistrate, upon receiving an application from a complainant who has been unable to get the police to register an FIR or properly investigate a matter, to direct the police to register an FIR and conduct a proper investigation. This provision is particularly useful in situations, including recurring issues such as ongoing harassment, repeated threats, or a continuing pattern of conduct where the police have been reluctant or have refused to register a complaint despite the information disclosing a cognizable offence.

The Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014), discussed in an earlier response, is central to understanding your rights here, since it clarified that FIR registration is mandatory when the information discloses a cognizable offence, and the police cannot refuse registration on the ground that they wish to conduct a preliminary inquiry first, except in the specific narrow categories of cases (matrimonial disputes, commercial disputes, medical negligence, and similarly nuanced categories) where a limited preliminary inquiry may be permissible before deciding on registration.

For a recurring issue specifically, such as ongoing harassment, repeated threats, or a continuing pattern of domestic violence, cyberstalking, or similar conduct, filing an application under Section 175(3) BNSS is particularly effective because you can specifically document the pattern and recurrence in your application, demonstrating to the Magistrate that this isn't an isolated incident but an ongoing course of conduct that the police have failed to address despite repeated complaints or approaches. Your application should include a clear chronological account of each instance of the recurring issue, dates and details of your prior attempts to get the police to act (including any written complaints, acknowledgment receipts, or correspondence with the police station), and specific reference to the relevant sections of law under which the conduct constitutes a cognizable offence.

The procedure involves your lawyer drafting and filing this application before the jurisdictional Magistrate, supported by an affidavit setting out the facts and your prior efforts to get police action, and once filed, the Magistrate examines whether the application discloses a cognizable offence and whether the police have indeed failed in their statutory duty to register and investigate. If satisfied, the Magistrate issues a specific direction to the police to register an FIR (if not already done) or to properly investigate an already-registered complaint, and Magistrates can, and often do, specifically direct that a status report be submitted within a defined timeframe, ensuring some judicial oversight over the pace and quality of the subsequent investigation.

Section 225 BNSS (Section 202 CrPC), by contrast, operates at a different and later stage, specifically in the context of a private complaint that has already been filed before the Magistrate under Section 223 BNSS (Section 200 CrPC), discussed in the earlier response regarding private complaints. This provision empowers the Magistrate, after examining the complainant and any witnesses present under Section 223/200, to postpone the issue of process against the accused and instead direct an investigation to be made, either by the police or by another person the Magistrate deems appropriate, specifically to determine whether there's sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint. This is essentially a tool the Magistrate can use before deciding whether to summon the accused, particularly in cases where the Magistrate feels the private complaint, as presented, doesn't yet provide enough clarity to justify issuing process without some further inquiry into the facts.

For a recurring issue you've brought as a private complaint, if the Magistrate directs an investigation under Section 225 BNSS/Section 202 CrPC, the investigating officer (whether police or another designated person) examines the specific facts you've alleged, may record statements of relevant witnesses, and submits a report to the Magistrate regarding whether the material supports proceeding with the complaint. This report then informs the Magistrate's decision on whether to issue summons to the accused or dismiss the complaint if the material doesn't support proceeding.

It's worth understanding the practical distinction in when each provision becomes relevant to your recurring issue: if you haven't yet approached a Magistrate at all and are simply trying to get the police to register and properly investigate your complaint about the recurring issue, Section 175(3) BNSS is your relevant remedy. If you've already filed a private complaint directly before the Magistrate (bypassing or supplementing the police route) and the Magistrate has directed a preliminary investigation before deciding whether to issue process against the accused, Section 225 BNSS governs that specific investigative stage.

If your recurring issue involves genuine urgency, such as ongoing domestic violence, continuous harassment, or a situation where delay itself poses a risk to your safety, it's worth having your lawyer specifically emphasise this urgency in whichever application you file, requesting expedited consideration and, where appropriate, interim protective measures alongside the request for investigation, since Magistrates do have the discretion to consider immediate protective needs, particularly in matters involving ongoing risk to personal safety, separate from the underlying investigation process itself.

Given how the specific procedural stage your matter has reached, and whether you're seeking to compel initial police registration and investigation or addressing a stage within an already-filed private complaint, significantly shapes which of these two provisions is the correct one to invoke, it's important to have your specific situation reviewed by an experienced lawyer who can identify the appropriate remedy and draft the application effectively. You can reach out to the team at Aapka Legal Advice to have your recurring issue and prior efforts to seek police action assessed, since choosing the correct provision and properly documenting the pattern of recurrence significantly improves your chances of prompt and effective action. If your matter requires an experienced advocate to file an application under either of these provisions, this list of Top Criminal Lawyers in India | Aapka Legal Advice can help you find suitable representation.

Conclusion: Section 175(3) BNSS and Section 225 BNSS serve distinct purposes at different stages of the criminal complaint process, with the former compelling initial police registration and investigation where this hasn't happened despite a cognizable offence being disclosed, and the latter governing a preliminary investigation directed by the Magistrate within an already-filed private complaint, so correctly identifying which stage your recurring issue has reached and pursuing the corresponding remedy, ideally with proper documentation of the pattern and your prior efforts to seek action, is the most effective way to compel appropriate legal response to your ongoing situation.