New Rules for Filing FIRs – Supreme Court Lays Down Clear Guidelines

Introduction

In Ranjit Singh Bath & Anr. v. Union Territory Chandigarh & Anr. (2025), a two‑judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, restated a fundamental principle of criminal procedure: a complainant cannot invoke Section 156(3) CrPC to order an investigation unless they first exhaust the remedies under Sections 154(1) and 154(3). This landmark ruling not only reinforces the binding Priyanka Srivastava v. State of UP (2015) precedent but also safeguards against abuse of judicial power, ensuring the police station remains the primary gateway for FIR registration.

Facts of the Case

The case revolves around a complaint filed by the second respondent under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). The respondent alleged commission of offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Acting upon this application, the Judicial Magistrate passed an order dated 14th June 2017, directing the concerned police station to register an FIR. This led to the initiation of criminal proceedings against the appellants. Aggrieved by the Magistrate’s order, the appellants approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court by filing a quashing petition, citing that proper procedure under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the CrPC had not been followed prior to seeking recourse under Section 156(3).

The appellants emphasized that the binding precedent set in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015)—which mandates compliance with Sections 154(1) and (3) before invoking Section 156(3)—was ignored. They argued that there was no specific averment or document produced by the complainant to show that such remedies were exhausted. They also cited Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka (2022), which reinforced this requirement. On the other hand, the respondent contended that a complaint had been submitted to the Inspector General of Police, which was marked to the Economic Offences Wing in 2014. However, this action was not explicitly presented as compliance with Section 154(3), nor were sufficient supporting documents or averments made in the complaint to substantiate this procedural step. These conflicting positions formed the core of the dispute before the Supreme Court.

Laws Involved

1. Section 154(1) CrPC – Duty to record information regarding cognizable offences at the police station.
2. Section 154(3) CrPC – Obligation of the Station House Officer to register an FIR or provide written reasons for refusal.
3. Section 156(3) CrPC – Power of a Magistrate under Section 190 to order an investigation if police neglect to act.
4. Section 175(3) BNSS 2023 – Mirrors Section 156(3) CrPC with updated procedural requirements.

Feel free to reach out to us at; https://thelegalshots.com/legal-opinion/ 

Supreme Court’s Observations

• Exhaustion of Remedies: A complainant must allege and prove service of information under Section 154(1) and refusal or neglect under Section 154(3) before invoking Section 156(3).
• Strict Adherence: Courts cannot rely on “substantial compliance” alone; an explicit averment and supporting documents are mandatory.
• Precedent Binding: Ignoring Priyanka Srivastava was a legal misstep; lower courts must follow binding Supreme Court authority.

Supreme Court’s Final Judgment

In its verdict, the Supreme Court:

• Allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR registration order made under Section 156(3) CrPC by the Magistrate.
• Held that no averment was made regarding refusal by the police to lodge an FIR under Section 154(1) or action under Section 154(3).
• Emphasized that mere submission of a complaint to the police does not amount to compliance under the law unless accompanied by an explicit averment of refusal and supporting documents.
• Reiterated that Magistrates must not entertain 156(3) applications unless satisfied with procedural compliance as per Priyanka Srivastava (2015) and Babu Venkatesh (2022).
• Concluded that the High Court erred in dismissing the quashing petition and restored judicial discipline by reinforcing the need to follow binding precedents.

My Analysis & Opinion

This decision is a welcome reinforcement of due process in criminal law. By insisting on strict compliance with FIR procedures, the Supreme Court protects both citizens’ rights and the integrity of police investigations. It prevents frivolous litigation clogging the courts and ensures genuine grievances reach the right authority first. As digital-complaint mechanisms evolve, this judgment reminds us that substantive justice rests on procedural fairness.

Key Takeaways (Fresh Version)

1. Section 156(3) CrPC is not a shortcut: You cannot approach a Magistrate for investigation unless you have first approached the police under Section 154 and then the Superintendent under Section 154(3).
2. No investigation without documented proof: Courts will no longer entertain complaints under Section 156(3) unless the complainant shows written proof of refusal by police and higher authorities.
3. Filing directly before Magistrate is procedural abuse: Directly invoking the court’s jurisdiction without exhausting preliminary remedies undermines the structure of criminal justice.
4. “Substantial compliance” not enough: The court clarified that actual compliance with the steps laid down in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of UP (2015) is mandatory, not just a formality.
5. Section 156(3) is discretionary, not automatic: Even if all steps are followed, the Magistrate still has discretion. There is no absolute right to an investigation order under this section.

Related Landmark Judgments

• Priyanka Srivastava v. State of UP (2015): Held that a Magistrate cannot shortcut the FIR process by invoking Section 156(3) without proof of refusal under Section 154(3).
• Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka (2022): Reaffirmed Srivastava’s mandate—courts must insist on strict compliance with Sections 154(1) & (3).
• Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014): Emphasized police duty under Section 41A CrPC, underlining the importance of procedure before custodial orders.
• Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major (1995): Clarified registration requirements under the Registration Act—procedural precision preserves substantive rights.
• Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India (2023): Reinforced fundamental rights in criminal procedure, including timely disposal of bail applications; parallels procedural insistence in investigations.

Title: Ranjit Singh Bath & Anr. v. Union Territory Chandigarh & Anr. (2025)

Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1234

If doubts still persist, contact our Legal Experts at https://thelegalshots.com/legal-opinion/