The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the procedural mandate under CrPC, emphasizing the necessity of exhausting remedies under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) before invoking Section 156(3).
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has reiterated that before invoking Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC),
“a complainant must first exhaust the remedies available under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of CrPC”
It clarified that
“Section 154(3) applies only when the Officer In-Charge of a Police Station has refused or failed to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon receiving a complaint or information about a cognizable offence“
The ruling effectively quashed a direction to register an FIR in a case where the initial complaint had been addressed to the Inspector General of Police (IG) instead of the relevant police station.
Judicial Observations and Ruling
A Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan , held that
“compliance with Section 154(1) is mandatory, requiring that information about a cognizable offence must first be furnished to the Officer In-Charge of a Police Station”
In the present case, the complainant had directly addressed the complaint to the IG, who subsequently forwarded it to the Economic Offences Wing for inquiry. However, the Court ruled that
“this did not fulfill the statutory requirement under Section 154(1) of CrPC”
Quoting from the judgment, the Bench observed:
“The requirement of sub-Section (1) of Section 154 is that information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence must be furnished to an Officer In-Charge of a Police Station. In this case, obviously, the said compliance was not made.”
The Court further emphasized that
“a complainant seeking recourse under Section 156(3) must first demonstrate that they have exhausted their remedies under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) and must provide supporting averments and documents in their complaint“
ALSO READ: Supreme Court to BCI: Do Not Interfere in Legal Education Matters
Background of the Case
In the matter at hand, the complainant had approached the Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of CrPC, requesting directions for the registration of an FIR under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The Judicial Magistrate allowed the application and directed the police to register an FIR. Subsequently, the order was challenged before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which dismissed the quashing petition, thereby upholding the Judicial Magistrate’s directive.
The complainant had admitted that their initial complaint was addressed to the Inspector General of Police, who marked it for inquiry by the Economic Offences Wing. However, no specific averment was made to indicate that the complainant had taken recourse to Section 154(3) of CrPC before approaching the Magistrate under Section 156(3).
Supreme Court’s Legal Reasoning
The Supreme Court relied on its precedent in Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of U.P. (2015), which established that
“before invoking Section 156(3), a complainant must first approach the Officer In-Charge of a Police Station under Section 154(1) and, if refused, escalate the matter under Section 154(3)”
It further held that
“these efforts must be explicitly mentioned in the application, supported by relevant documents”
The Court highlighted the necessity of an affidavit to accompany an application under Section 156(3), highlighting that it ensures the complainant is conscious of the allegations made and serves as a safeguard against frivolous or false complaints.
“In this case, obviously, the said compliance was not made. It is stated that the Inspector General of Police forwarded the complaint to the Economic Offences Wing. However, sub-Section (3) of Section 154 comes into play only when a complaint is submitted to the Officer In-Charge of a Police Station or information is provided to them regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, and they refuse or neglect to register an FIR.”
The Court found that both the Judicial Magistrate and the High Court had overlooked the binding precedent set in Priyanka Srivastava, which necessitates the exhaustion of remedies under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) before seeking directions under Section 156(3). Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing both the impugned orders and setting aside any further proceedings initiated on their basis.
Takeaways
- Mandatory Compliance with Section 154(1) and (3): Before seeking a directive under Section 156(3) CrPC, a complainant must first approach the Officer In-Charge of a Police Station and, if refused, escalate the matter under Section 154(3).
- Lack of Compliance Renders Complaint Premature: If a complaint is directly addressed to higher police authorities (such as the IG) without following the prescribed legal process, subsequent applications under Section 156(3) are not maintainable.
- Judicial Scrutiny of Applications Under Section 156(3): Courts must ensure that complainants demonstrate prior compliance with Section 154(1) and (3) before entertaining applications under Section 156(3).
- Preventing Frivolous Complaints: The requirement for an affidavit ensures that complainants are accountable for the allegations made and prevents the misuse of judicial processes.
The ruling reinforces the importance of procedural discipline while seeking criminal law remedies and provides clarity on the scope and applicability of Section 156(3) of CrPC.
Case Details
- Cause Title: Ranjith Singh Bath & Anr. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 4313/2024)
- Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
- Appellants’ Representation:
- Advocate-on-Record: Subhasish Bhowmick
- Advocates: Surjit S. Swaitch, Deepa Negi, Pritpal Singh Swatch, Rajat Sharma
- Respondents’ Representation:
- Senior Advocate: D.P. Singh
- Advocate-on-Record: Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Sonam Gupta
- Advocates: Kanu Agrawal, Varun Chugh, Bhuvan Kapoor, Manu Mishra, Garima Saxena, Iman Khera
READ MORE REPORTS ON SUPREME COURT
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE