BENCH: Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan
FACTS:
The present Appeal stems from a Criminal Application that was originally filed before the Bombay High Court, wherein the Appellant sought to challenge an Order issued by the Judicial Magistrate. The case originated from allegations made by the original complainant, who claimed that he had been subjected to humiliation at the hands of the police. Upon attempting to formally lodge a complaint regarding this misconduct, the complainant alleged that the police authorities refused to register a First Information Report (FIR). Faced with inaction on the part of the law enforcement authorities, the complainant subsequently approached the Magistrate by filing an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking judicial intervention.
Upon considering the matter, the Magistrate issued directions to the police, mandating them to register an FIR and to undertake a thorough investigation into the allegations. Aggrieved by this directive, the Appellant sought recourse before the Bombay High Court, challenging the Magistrate’s order. However, the High Court, upon examining the facts and legal principles involved, dismissed the Appellant’s plea, thereby affirming the decision of the Magistrate and upholding the directive for police investigation. Consequently, the present Appeal has been instituted to contest the High Court's ruling.
ISSUES:
The chief issue in this case is whether the Magistrate passed an order directing police investigation mechanically and without ascertaining whether the allegations levelled disclose commission of any offence or not.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Court ruled that the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the order passed by the Magistrate directing police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. is also set aside.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, examined the modifications introduced to the scheme of Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The Court noted that Section 175 of the BNSS corresponds to Section 156 of the CrPC, with Sub-section (1) of Section 175 being in pari materia with Section 156(1) of the CrPC, except for the addition of a proviso. This proviso grants the Superintendent of Police the authority to direct the Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate a case if the nature or gravity of the allegations so demands.
Further, the Court identified three significant changes introduced by Section 175(3) of the BNSS in comparison to Section 156(3) of the CrPC. First, it mandates that before approaching the Magistrate under Section 175(3), an applicant must first submit an application to the Superintendent of Police if the officer in charge of the police station has refused to register an FIR. Additionally, the applicant must furnish a copy of this application, supported by an affidavit, while petitioning the Magistrate. Second, the Magistrate has been vested with the power to conduct an inquiry as deemed necessary before issuing an order for FIR registration. Third, before directing the registration of an FIR, the Magistrate must take into account the submissions of the officer in charge of the police station regarding the refusal to register the complaint.
The Court also referred to its earlier ruling in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015), wherein it was held that applications under Section 156(3) of the CrPC must be accompanied by an affidavit sworn by the applicant. The rationale behind this requirement, as observed by the Court, is to ensure that the applicant is fully aware of the legal consequences of filing a complaint and to prevent the filing of frivolous or false complaints. It was further emphasized that if an affidavit is found to be false, the applicant would be liable for prosecution, thereby deterring the casual invocation of the Magistrate’s authority under Section 156(3).
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had erred in upholding the Magistrate’s order directing a police investigation. Consequently, the Court set aside both the High Court’s ruling and the Magistrate’s order, thereby allowing the Appeal.
ANALYIS:
The Supreme Court’s ruling highlights the evolving jurisprudence on the Magistrate’s powers under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, particularly in light of the procedural safeguards introduced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The Court found that the Magistrate had mechanically directed the police to register an FIR without assessing whether the allegations disclosed a cognizable offence. It emphasized that under the BNSS, three key changes have been introduced: an applicant must first seek recourse from the Superintendent of Police before approaching the Magistrate, the Magistrate has been granted the power to conduct an independent inquiry, and police submissions regarding the refusal to register an FIR must be considered. By setting aside both the High Court and Magistrate’s orders, the Court reinforced that judicial discretion under Section 156(3) should be exercised with due diligence, ensuring that frivolous complaints do not overburden the criminal justice system.
The Court also relied on Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015) to stress the necessity of procedural discipline. It reiterated that applications under Section 156(3) must be accompanied by a sworn affidavit to deter casual or malicious complaints and to ensure that applicants understand the legal consequences of filing a complaint. The requirement of an affidavit serves as a safeguard against false allegations, as applicants making false claims could face prosecution. This ruling reinforces the importance of judicial scrutiny, balancing the need for access to justice with preventing the misuse of legal provisions. By insisting on a structured and responsible approach to initiating police investigations, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the integrity and efficiency of the criminal justice system.
info@adhwaitha.com