Latest JudgementCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973Indian Penal Code, 1860
Ranjit Singh Bath & Anr. v. Union Territory Chandigarh & Anr., 2025
The Supreme Court held that the complainant had not exhausted the remedies under Section 154(1) and 154(3) before approaching the Magistrate under Section 156(3).
Supreme Court of India·22 March 2025
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
22 March 2025
Judges
Justice Abhay Oka ⦁ Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 154(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)
Section 154(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)
Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Facts of the Case
- A Judicial Magistrate had directed the registration of an FIR under Sections 420 (cheating) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC on June 14, 2017.
- The complainant approached the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to seek the registration of an FIR and investigation.
- The Supreme Court reviewed the Magistrate's order, quashing it on the ground that the complainant had not first exhausted remedies under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the CrPC before invoking Section 156(3).
Issues
- Whether a complainant must first exhaust the remedies available under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the CrPC before seeking a direction from the Magistrate under Section 156(3) for the registration of an FIR?
- Whether the Magistrate’s order to register an FIR was valid when the complainant had not followed the procedural requirements under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the CrPC?
- Whether the complainant’s failure to provide necessary averments about exhausting remedies under Section 154 impacted the validity of the application under Section 156(3)?
Judgement
- The Supreme Court reiterated that before seeking a Magistrate’s direction under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to register an FIR and investigate a cognizable offence, the complainant must exhaust remedies under Section 154(1) and 154(3) of the CrPC.
- The Court quashed the Magistrate’s order, emphasizing that both Sub-Sections (1) and (3) of Section 154 are the remedies available to set the criminal law in motion.
- It also referred to the binding precedent in Priyanka Srivastava and expressed concerns about the misuse of Section 156(3), stressing that applications under this section must be accompanied by an affidavit to ensure accountability.
Held
- The Supreme Court held that the complainant had not exhausted the remedies under Section 154(1) and 154(3) before approaching the Magistrate under Section 156(3).
- The Court quashed the orders passed by the Magistrate and the High Court, finding them to be in violation of the procedural requirements.
- The appeal was allowed, and the Magistrate's order was set aside.
Analysis
- The Court emphasized that before seeking a direction for registration of an FIR under Section 156(3), the complainant must first report the matter under Section 154(1) to the police.
- If the police refuse to register the complaint, the complainant must escalate the matter to the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3), and only after these steps can a Magistrate be approached.
- The Court clarified that applications under Section 156(3) must be supported by an affidavit detailing compliance with the procedural requirements under Section 154.
- The failure of the complainant to include these averments led to the quashing of the Magistrate's order.
- Referring to the case of Priyanka Srivastava, the Court highlighted the necessity for complainants to ensure they comply with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) before invoking Section 156(3) to avoid abuse of the legal process.
- The Court reiterated concerns expressed in Priyanka Srivastava regarding the misuse of Section 156(3), stressing the need for proper procedures to be followed to avoid frivolous applications.