Introduction
Filing a petition under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) can have consequences for the petitioner. Recent rulings by the Supreme Court of India have established clear guidelines for filing such petitions, including the need to meet certain conditions and specify the essential elements of the offense to justify the initiation of criminal proceedings. Filing a petition under Section 156(3) CrPC is considered a last resort, and the petitioner must first exhaust other remedies like approaching the superintendent of police or higher officials. If the affidavit supporting the petition is found to be false, the person would be liable for prosecution in accordance with the law. Additionally, the High Courts should avoid intervention unless there is no alternative remedy left. Overall, it is essential to use the magistrate’s power under Section 156(3) CrPC responsibly and judiciously to maintain the integrity of the criminal justice system.
To learn more about the topic, read the blog till the end, and if there lies any more doubt, feel free to reach out to us at; https://thelegalshots.com/legal-opinion/
What is Section 154 and 156 CrPC?
Beginning with the essential differences between the sections 154 and 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, this article culminates with the chronology of remedies to be exhausted for registration of FIR through Court.
Section 154: Information in cognizable cases
Section 154 (1) Cr.P.C elucidates that any information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by himself or under his direction, and all such information, whether in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person who furnishes it.
Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C explicates that a complaint shall be given in writing or by post to the Superintendent of Police if any person is aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in subsection.
The Superintendent of Police, upon receipt of such complaint if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code.
Section 156 (3). Judicial magistrate’s power to investigate cognizable case
Section 156(3) entails that any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order an investigation by a police officer performing its duties under Chapter XII of Cr.P.C
The above-mentioned sections highlight the chronology/series of remedies available to a person. Firstly, filing a complaint before the police official and secondly, in the event of failure of the registration of the complaint by the official, one shall approach the SSP/SP for the said purpose. However, if the complaint is not registered even after that, then the next remedy is to seek help from the Judicial Magistrate.
Hon’ble Apex Court citing various judgments has clarified the right approach for registration of FIR.
Court’s Observation
Hon’ble Apex court has observed that if any application under Section 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and an appropriate investigation to be taken place, in the event where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was done. Under the same provision, the Magistrate may monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.
High Court’s Power – (Why not move the High Court by filing a writ petition or Under Section 482 Cr.P.C)
Hon’ble Apex Court relying on its judgment passed in Case 1 observed that- we have found in this country that the High Courts are flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation.
The High Court should not encourage this practice and should generally refuse to intervene in such matters and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy under Section 154(3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36, his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person’s FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, a proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
It is true that alternative remedies are not the absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally settled that the High Court should not intervene if there is an alternative remedy.
Interpretation
Thus, it can be safely concluded that in order to keep the wheels of our criminal justice system moving, filing of “FIR” is most essential. The same should be done chronologically. Firstly, the complainant must try to get the FIR filed under Section 154 C.r.P.C. If the police refuse to register FIR U/S 154 then the complainant must move under Section 154(3) by filing a written complaint. In case of non-registration of FIR, as per previous provisions then the complainant can move under Sec 156(3) and can approach Magistrate.
It is well-settled law that 156(3) is a resort for registration of FIR in the event the police do not entertain one’s complaint. Directly approaching High Court for registration of the FIR either by filing a writ petition/application under Article 226 of Constitution Of India or section 482 of CrPC would cause dismissal of the petition out rightly. Therefore, the crux of the matter is to exhaust the remedies chronologically, categorically and cautiously in light of the aforementioned legal scheme of provisions.
Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka
The petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeks to quash the First Information Report (FIR) registered in Cr.No.250/2019 in PCR No.12440/2019 for various offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The factual background involves allegations of cheating and fabrication of documents related to a sale deed of a flat. The complainant accused the petitioners of fraudulent activities, leading to the initiation of legal proceedings.
The petitioners argue that the allegations lack merit and do not constitute the offences mentioned in the FIR. They contend that the Magistrate’s decision to refer the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was mechanical and without proper application of mind.
On the other hand, the respondents argue that the complaint contains specific allegations supported by evidence, justifying the referral for investigation. They assert that the Magistrate exercised due diligence in referring the matter to the police.
Upon hearing both sides, the court observes that the complainant’s allegations are serious and warrant investigation. The court emphasizes the need to consider the contents of the complaint and the prima facie material available before making a decision under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is noted that the Magistrate applied his mind judiciously before referring the matter for investigation, as mandated by legal precedents.
The court refers to relevant judgments, including Priyanka Srivatsava Vs. State of U.P. and others, to underscore the importance of proper application of mind by the judicial authorities and the limitations of the court’s interference at the initial stage of investigation.
Additionally, the court cites HDFC Securities Ltd. and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another to highlight the principle that the court should not interfere prematurely with the investigative process unless there is a clear abuse of process or irreparable harm caused.
Ultimately, considering the seriousness of the allegations and the legal principles involved, the court dismisses the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., affirming the Magistrate’s decision to refer the matter for investigation. The court emphasizes that premature interference would be inappropriate and reiterates the importance.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the article provides a comprehensive overview of the procedures and considerations involved in filing a petition under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in India. It emphasizes the importance of responsible petitioning, exhaustion of alternative remedies, and the judiciary’s role in maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system.
The case of Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka illustrates the judicial scrutiny applied to such petitions, highlighting the need for a thorough examination of allegations and evidence before making decisions under Section 482 of CrPC. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, affirming the magistrate’s decision to refer the matter for investigation, and emphasizing the principle of minimal judicial interference in the investigative process.
To understand more such complex law in simple ways, stay connected with www.thelegalshots.com .
If doubts still persist, contact our Legal Experts at https://thelegalshots.com/legal-opinion/
