2025 Supreme(SC) 1114

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
Anurag Bhatnagar & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 18084 of 2024 with Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.18087 of 2024, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.18094 of 2024, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.18091 of 2024, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.18095 of 2024
Decided On : 25-07-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Direction for Police investigation – Person aggrieved must first exhaust alternative remedies available to him in law before approaching court of law – He cannot ordinarily approach court directly.
(2) Second complaint/FIR – When a complaint is dismissed on merits, second complaint on same facts cannot be made except in a very exceptional circumstance.
(3) Speaking order is a part and an essential component of Principles of Natural Justice, which are applicable to every judicial order.
(4) Discretion to quash FIR at a nascent stage has to be exercised with great caution and circumspection.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 156(3) – Direction for Police investigation – Person aggrieved must first exhaust alternative remedies available to him in law before approaching court of law – He cannot ordinarily approach court directly – It is imperative upon informant to first approach officer-in-charge of police station for the purposes of lodging FIR in respect of a cognizable offence and where Police refuses to record such information, remedy is to approach concerned Superintendent of Police – It is only when no action is taken even by Superintendent of Police and information of commission of a cognizable offence is not being recorded by officer-in-charge of police station or even by Superintendent of Police, that person aggrieved or informant may move court of Magistrate concerned to get FIR registered and lodged with concerned police station. (Paras 26, 27 and 29)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 156(3) – Direction for Police investigation – Magistrate ought not to ordinarily entertain an application under Section 156(3) CrPC directly unless informant has availed and exhausted his remedies provided under Section 154(3) CrPC – But as Magistrate is otherwise competent under Section 156(3) CrPC to direct registration of FIR if allegations in application/complaint discloses commission of cognizable offence, order so passed by Magistrate would not be without jurisdiction and would not stand vitiated on this count – Whenever any power is bestowed upon a judicial authority, it is incumbent that it should be exercised on the basis of sound legal principles by application of mind and by a speaking order – Reasoned order upon application of judicious mind is inherent while passing order under Section 156(3) of CrPC – Mere stating in the order that Counsel has been heard and application and material produced have been perused, may not be indicative of fact that Magistrate had actually applied his mind to controversy in issue – Speaking order is a part and an essential component of Principles of Natural Justice, which are applicable to every judicial order – It was but natural for Magistrate to pass a reasoned order, irrespective of interpretation of provision subsequently which was in line with Principles of Natural Justice. (Paras 33, 35, 38 and 40)

(C) Precedent – Merely because a Judgment by Court has simply interpreted and reiterated established principles of law that ought to have been into practice, it would not mean that such principles would be applicable prospectively only from date of its interpretation – Interpretation made later on would not mean that provision had a different meaning prior to its above interpretation. (Para 38)

(D) Constitution of India – Article 226/227 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Inherent Jurisdiction – Exercise of – Powers conferred upon court under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226/227 of Constitution of India are discretionary in nature – It is not obligatory upon court to exercise inherent power in each and every case, even if order impugned suffers from minor procedural irregularity, provided there is no miscarriage of justice – In a case where pursuant to order of Magistrate which is not illegal or without jurisdiction, FIR has been registered which discloses cognizable offence and, thereafter, upon investigation, charge-sheets have been submitted, there is no justification for court to exercise discretionary jurisdiction so as to quash FIR or order of Magistrate – Registration of FIR, giving rise to fresh cause of action to challenge charge-sheets, High Court has rightly refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction so as to interfere with FIR as investigations have been completed and charge-sheets have been filed – There are elements of inducement, criminal conspiracy and cheating – Once such allegations are made out, it is difficult for court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to interfere with FIR, only for reason that some of disputes are of civil nature which may or may not be having any criminality attached to it. (Paras 43, 44 and 46)

(E) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Inherent Jurisdiction – Exercise of – Discretion to quash FIR at a nascent stage has to be exercised with great caution and circumspection – Court would not thwart any investigation – Court should be very slow in interfering with process of investigation – It is only in rare cases where no cognizable offence is disclosed in FIR that court may stop investigation so as to avoid harassment of alleged accused – Even in such exercise of power, court cannot embark upon inquiry as to genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in FIR or complaint which have to be examined only after evidence is collected. (Para 46)

(F) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 154 and 300 – Second complaint/FIR – Maintainability – Section 300 CrPC debars second trial – No one should be harassed twice for same offence by putting him to trial again and again – Successive FIRs in respect of same cognizable offence are not maintainable provided that on the basis of earlier FIR, investigations have been completed and trial had either resulted in conviction or acquittal of accused – When a complaint is dismissed on merits, second complaint on same facts cannot be made except in a very exceptional circumstance. (Paras 52, 53 and 54)

Facts of the case:

Following points crop up for determination:

(i) Whether an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC could have been filed without approaching the police authorities;

(ii) Whether the order dated 01.07.2005 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate is an order passed without application of mind, irrespective of the fact that it states that the parties were “heard” and the documents were “perused”;

(iii) Whether the High Court can deny quashing of the order dated 01.07.2005 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and the FIR registered pursuant to it for the reason that the investigations have been completed and the chargesheets have been filed against the accused persons;

(iv) Whether the nature of dispute raised in the offending FIR is of a civil nature and there is no involvement of criminality when both sides have previously lodged FIRs originating from same MoU dated 11.03.1995;

(v) Whether the present FIR amounts to a successive FIR based upon the same allegations as contained in an earlier FIR No.326/2004 and as such cannot be investigated independently.

Findings of Court:

Since in connection with FIR No.380/2005, investigations have been completed and the High Court has refused to quash the said FIR in exercise of its discretionary power, we do not deem it necessary to exercise our discretion to override that of the High Court and leave the matter to proceed further in accordance with law.

Result : Petitions dismissed.