As per case facts, the appellant alleged sexual assault by police officers during a property dispute investigation. After initial complaints and a police report finding allegations untrue, the appellant approached ... the JMFC, who called for a report under BNSS Section 175(4). A Single Judge then intervened, ordering FIR registration, stating 175(4) was not mandatory for rape as it wasn't "official duty." The Division Bench set aside the Single Judge's Order, noting pending JMFC proceedings. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The question arose regarding the interpretation of BNSS Section 175(3) and (4) – whether 175(4) is a standalone provision or read with 175(3), and the procedure for magistrates in complaints against public servants for acts in "discharge of official duties." Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that 175(4) is a procedural layer to 175(3), not standalone, requiring an affidavit and prior approach to the Superintendent of Police. It upheld the Division Bench, finding the Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction by intervening without a challenge to the JMFC's Order.