The Bench, comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, observed that the Magistrate had passed the order without properly analyzing whether the allegations made actually pointed to the commission of a crime.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has pointed out the key differences between Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Section 175(3) of the recently enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), particularly in the process of filing an FIR (First Information Report).
The Supreme Court set aside the order passed by a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, directing police authorities to register an FIR against the Appellant for offences under Sections 323 (causing hurt), 294 (obscene acts), 500 (defamation), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Bench, comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, observed that the Magistrate had passed the order without properly analyzing whether the allegations made actually pointed to the commission of a crime.
Justice Pardiwala, speaking on behalf of the Bench, noted:
“Further, by requiring the Magistrate to consider the submissions made by the concerned police officer before proceeding to issue directions under Section 175(3), BNSS has affixed greater accountability on the police officer responsible for registering FIRs under Section 173. Mandating the Magistrate to consider the submissions of the concerned police officer also ensures that the Magistrate applies his mind judicially while considering both the complaint and the submissions of the police officer thereby ensuring that the requirement of passing reasoned orders is complied with in a more effective and comprehensive manner.”
Background
This appeal arose from a Criminal Application filed before the Bombay High Court. The original complainant, claiming he was humiliated by the police and denied the right to file an FIR, approached the Magistrate with an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The Magistrate, after considering the complaint, directed the police to register the FIR and conduct an investigation. Dissatisfied with the order, the Appellant challenged it in the High Court, which upheld the Magistrate’s decision.
The Court delved into the differences between the old CrPC provisions and the newly introduced BNSS law.
According to the Supreme Court, “Section 175 of the BNSS corresponds to Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. Sub-section (1) of Section 175 of the BNSS is in pari materia with sub-section 156(1) of the Cr.P.C. except for the proviso which empowers the Superintendent of Police to direct the Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate a case if the nature or gravity of the case so requires.”
This shows the close similarity of Section 175(1) in BNSS to Section 156(1) of the CrPC, but with an added provision for higher authorities to step in for investigations in more serious cases.
The Court further highlighted three important changes introduced by the BNSS:
- Mandatory Application to the Superintendent of Police: Under Section 175(3), if a police officer refuses to file an FIR, the applicant must now make an application to the Superintendent of Police. Additionally, the applicant is required to provide a copy of this application along with an affidavit when approaching the Magistrate.
- Magistrate’s Discretion for Enquiry: Unlike the earlier provision in the CrPC, the Magistrate now has the power to conduct an enquiry before directing the police to register an FIR.
- Consideration of Police Submissions: The Magistrate must consider the police officer’s reasons for refusing to register the FIR before issuing any direction under Section 175(3).
The Supreme Court referred to the 2015 decision in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., which clarified the need for an affidavit to accompany any application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.
In that case, the Court stated, “The requirement of supporting the complaint with an affidavit would ensure that the person making the application is conscious and also to see that no false affidavit is made. Once an affidavit is found to be false, the applicant would be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This would deter him from casually invoking the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3).”
The Supreme Court allowed the Appellant’s appeal, setting aside both the High Court’s order and the Magistrate’s decision. The ruling reinforced the importance of a reasoned judicial process in issuing directions for FIR registration. By clarifying the procedures under Section 175(3) of the BNSS and comparing them with the CrPC, the Court has ensured that there will be greater accountability and transparency in how FIRs are handled.
Case Title:
OM PRAKASH AMBADKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
