The court had already stated that before filing a petition under Section 156(3), there should be prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3).
Ranjit Singh Bath & Anr. v. Union Territory Chandigarh & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 4313/2024
This case involves a criminal appeal related to procedural requirements under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) for offenses under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Ranjit Singh Bath & Anr. – Appellants
Union Territory chandigarh & Anr. – Respondents
Order by the Supreme Court
The respondent filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, asking the court to direct the police to register an First Information Report (FIR). On June14, 2017, the Judicial Magistrate ordered the Police to register a FIR for the offences punishable under Section 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) and Section 120-B (punishment for criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The accused then challenged this order by filing a petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana to quash the FIR. However, the High Court dismissed their petition, allowing the investigation to continue.
The respondent stated that, although there was no specific mention of compliance with Section 154 (1) and (3) of the CrPC, the requirements were fulfilled in substance. He said that a written complaint was sent to the Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh, who forwarded it to the Economic Offences Wing of Chandigarh Police for inquiry. He admitted that there was no clear mention of following the procedure under Section 154(3) of the CrPC.
In the Priyanka Srivastava case, the court held that Section 156(3) of the CrPC was being misused. The court stated that applications under Section 156(3) should be support by an affidavit sworn by the applicant seeking the Magistrate’s intervention. This affidavit made the applicant more responsible. The court observed that many applications were being filed routinely, just to harass certain individuals.
The court had already stated that before filing a petition under Section 156(3), there should be prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3). Both these steps had to be clearly mentioned in the application, along with the necessary documents.
The court required an affidavit with the Section 156(3) application to ensure that the applicant acted responsibly and avoided making false claims. If the affidavit was found to be false, the applicant could face prosecution. This rule discourage people from misusing the Magistrate’s authority under Section 156(3).
If someone gave information about a cognizable offence orally to a Police officer in charge, the officer had to write it down or have it written under his supervision. He then had to read it back to the informant. If the information was given in writing or recorded by the officer, the informant had to sign it. The officer had also to enter the details in a register kept in the format prescribed by the State Government.
Section 154 (1) and (3) of the CrPC provided two remedies to initiate criminal proceedings. The court held that before filing a complaint under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, the complainant had to first use these remedies. He also had to mention this in the complaint and submit supporting documents.
However, in this case, the second respondent did not follow these steps. Despite this, both the Magistrate and the High Court ignored the court’s binding decision in the case of Priyanka Srivastava.
The court quashed and set aside both the impugned orders and canceled all further actions based on the Judicial Magistrate’s order dated June 14, 2017. The court did not make any decision on the allegations made by the second respondent. However, the second respondent was free to seek remedies under Section 154 of the CrPC, as per the law.
In this case, the court allowed the appeal. The Pending application was also disposed off.
If incase you need any legal assistance you can now try our AI Legal Advisor.
