Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 167
Local inquiry
(1) Whenever a local inquiry is necessary for the purposes of section 164, section 165 or section 166, a District Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate may depute any Magistrate subordinate to him to make the inquiry, and may furnish him with such written instructions as may seem necessary for his guidance, and may declare by whom the whole or any part of the necessary expenses of the inquiry shall be paid.
(2) The report of the person so deputed may be read as evidence in the case.
(3) When any costs have been incurred by any party to a proceeding under section 164, section 165 or section 166, the Magistrate passing a decision may direct by whom such costs shall be paid, whether by such party or by any other party to the proceeding, and whether in whole or in part or proportion and such costs may include any expenses incurred in respect of witnesses and of advocates' fees, which the Court may consider reasonable.
Why this exists
Cases about public nuisances or obstructions (covered under sections 164-166) often turn on physical facts — like whether a road is blocked, a building is dangerous, or a river's flow is affected — which a magistrate cannot always judge just from paperwork or arguments in court. This provision, carried forward from the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure (where it existed as Section 143), lets a magistrate delegate someone to physically inspect the site and report back, saving time and letting the case be decided on facts. Sub-section (3) exists so that the cost of contesting or investigating a nuisance dispute doesn't fall unfairly on one party alone, and the magistrate has discretion to allot expenses fairly.
How courts read it
Courts interpreting the equivalent provision under the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure treated the local inquiry report as useful evidence but not automatically conclusive — parties affected by the findings are generally understood to get a fair chance to contest or explain the report before the magistrate relies on it to decide the case. No landmark Supreme Court ruling is specifically tied to the renumbered Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita provision yet, since it is a recent enactment.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: The local inquiry report is the final word and cannot be questioned.
Fact: The report is evidence that can be considered by the magistrate, but the parties can generally challenge or explain it before it's relied upon to decide the case. - Myth: Only the losing party pays the costs automatically.
Fact: The magistrate has discretion — costs can be split, or fully placed on either party, depending on the circumstances of the case.