A Bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Introduction
The Supreme Court in this case reaffirmed that a Magistrate cannot direct FIR registration under Section 156(3) of CrPC unless the complainant has first exhausted remedies under Sections 154(1) and 154(3). The Court emphasized that before seeking a Magistrate’s intervention, the complainant must first report the offense to the police and escalate it to the Superintendent of Police (SP) if necessary. The ruling follows the principles laid down in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015) to prevent the misuse of Section 156(3), CrPC.
- Section 154(1) CrPC (Now Section 173 of BNS) – Requires a complainant to first approach the officer in charge of a police station to report a cognizable offense.
- Section 154(3) CrPC (Now Section 173 of BNS) – If the police refuse to register FIR, the complainant must submit a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police (SP) before taking further action.
- Section 156(3) CrPC (Now Section 175 of BNS) – Allows a Magistrate to direct police to register FIR and investigate a cognizable offense only if the complainant has exhausted the remedies under Section 154.
- Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015) 6 SCC 287 – Established that:
- A complainant must first approach the police under Section 154(1).
- If refused, they must escalate to the SP under Section 154(3).
- Only after exhausting these steps can they seek an order under Section 156(3), which must be accompanied by an affidavit.
Facts of the Case
The complainant (Respondent No. 2) filed an application before a Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, seeking registration of FIR for offenses under Section 420 (Cheating) and Section 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy) IPC. The Magistrate, without verifying whether the complainant had approached the police first, directed the police to register FIR. The accused (Petitioners) challenged this order before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which upheld the Magistrate’s decision. Aggrieved, the Petitioners approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the complainant had failed to exhaust the remedies under Sections 154(1) & 154(3) CrPC, making the Magistrate’s order legally unsustainable.
Issues Before the Court
- Whether a Magistrate can direct FIR registration under Section 156(3) CrPC without ensuring that the complainant first approached the police under Sections 154(1) & 154(3)?
- Whether the High Court erred in upholding the Magistrate’s order without considering the procedural requirements established in Priyanka Srivastava’s case?
Contentions of the Petitioner
The complainant had not first approached the police as required under Section 154(1) CrPC and had also not escalated the matter to the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC before approaching the Magistrate. The Magistrate’s order was contrary to the binding decision in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015), which mandates prior compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) before invoking Section 156(3). The complainant did not file an affidavit along with the application, as required by Priyanka Srivastava, which ensures responsibility for allegations. The High Court ignored the settled law and failed to quash the Magistrate’s order despite these procedural lapses.
Contentions of the Respondent
The complainant argued that a written complaint was submitted to the Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh, which was then referred to the Economic Offences Wing for inquiry. The minor omission of explicitly mentioning compliance with Section 154(3) should not invalidate the complaint, as the substance of the grievance was clear. The Magistrate has wide discretion under Section 156(3) CrPC, and the order for FIR registration was a valid exercise of judicial power.
Court’s Analysis
- Mandatory Compliance with Section 154(1) & 154(3) – The Supreme Court held that before seeking an order under Section 156(3), the complainant must first approach the police and, if refused, escalate to the Superintendent of Police (SP). Since the complainant failed to follow this, the Magistrate’s order was legally flawed.
- Magistrate’s Limited Role in FIR Registration – The Magistrate cannot mechanically order FIR registration without verifying compliance with procedural safeguards. Since these steps were skipped, the order violated settled legal principles.
- High Court's Failure to Apply Settled Law – The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for upholding the Magistrate’s order despite clear procedural lapses. It stated that courts must strictly adhere to procedural safeguards to prevent misuse of criminal law.
The Supreme Court quashed the Magistrate’s order directing FIR registration under Section 156(3) CrPC. The High Court’s judgment was also set aside for failing to apply the correct legal principles. The Court reaffirmed Priyanka Srivastava’s ruling and directed that Magistrates must strictly verify compliance with Sections 154(1) & 154(3) before exercising powers under Section 156(3). The complainant was granted liberty to first approach the police as per the prescribed procedure before filing a fresh application.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Ranjit Singh Bath v. UT Chandigarh reinforces the mandatory procedural safeguards for filing complaints under Section 156(3) CrPC. The Court prevented the misuse of criminal law by ensuring that complainants must first exhaust police remedies before seeking judicial intervention. The judgment upholds legal discipline, prevents frivolous litigation, and ensures fairness in criminal investigations.
