Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Smt. Thara peethambaram - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 5891 of 2024
Decided on : 25-09-2024
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 156(3) - Order of Magistrate referring matter for investigation - The order lacks reasoning and application of mind, rendering it unsustainable - The Magistrate must judiciously apply mind to determine if a cognizable offence is disclosed before directing an investigation. (Paras 7, 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenge the Magistrate's order referring a private complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., alleging non-application of mind and lack of reasoning in the order.
Findings of Court:
The order of the Magistrate is quashed for being cryptic and lacking necessary reasoning, and the matter is remitted for reconsideration.
Issues: Whether the Magistrate's order suffers from a lack of application of mind in referring the matter for investigation under Section 156(3).
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a Magistrate must apply judicial discretion when considering a complaint under Section 156(3) and cannot act mechanically.
Result: The Criminal Petition is allowed, and the order dated 30.04.2024, is quashed.
ORDER :
The petitioners – accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court calling in question an order of the learned Magistrate dated 30.04.2024, passed in P.C.R.No.5636/2024, by which the learned Magistrate has referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and also seek quashment of the crime registered by respondent No.2 in Crime No.157/2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 416, 419, 420 and 34 of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri C.V.Nagesh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jagadeesha B.N., learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri Promod Nair, learned senior counsel for respondent No.2.
3. The first petitioner is the mother of petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2 and therefore, petitioner No.2 and the respondent No.2 are siblings and all are in squabble on certain dispute, which lead respondent No.2 before the learned Magistrate by filing a private complaint invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate in terms of the order dated 30.04.2024, refers the matter for investigation as obtaining under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. It is this reference that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, apart from consequential action of the jurisdictional police registering the crime against these petitioners in Crime No.157/2024 for the offences so alleged.
4. Sri C.V.Nagesh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners would take this Court through the order dated 30.04.2024, which refers the matter for investigation, contending that it not only suffers from non-application of mind, but total non-application of mind, on the score that the order does not bear any reasons, and the matter is referred for investigation into its own Office.
5. Sri Promod Nair, learned senior counsel for respondent No.2 – complainant would submit that the order, is a matter of record no submission can be made beyond what is found in the order.
6. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would also toe the lines of the learned senior counsel for respondent No.2.
7. In that light, the only issue that falls for consideration at the hands of this Court at this juncture is, “whether the order of the learned Magistrate, referring the matter for investigation under section 156(3) suffers from want of application of mind”.
8. The order so made on the private complaint so registered under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., dated 30.04.2024, reads as follows:
| “ORDER The complainant has filed this private complaint U/Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to refer the complaint to the jurisdictional Police Station for registering the FIR against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.504, 506, 416, 419, 420 of the IPC. The complainant has filed affidavit and documents along with his complaint. Heard the counsel for the complainant. I have perused the contents of the complaint, the affidavit and other documents placed before me. The complainant has narrated the steps taken by him before approaching this Court. It appears that complainant has lodged the complaint at Rajagopalnagar Police Station. But it appears that the police have not received/not taken action the complaint. The complainant has complied with Sec.154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. But the police have not taken any action based on his complaint. Therefore, it makes clear that the complainant has complied with the conditions laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava & other VS State of U.P. Therefore, in my opinion, it is a fit case to refer to the jurisdictional Police Station for registering the FIR and to conduct the investigation for the alleged offences. With these observations, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Office is direct the investigation and to file Final Report. The PSI |
A Magistrate must apply judicial discretion and provide reasoning when referring a matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.; mechanical orders are unsustainable.
The Magistrate has discretion under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to determine whether to direct an investigation, particularly in civil disputes masquerading as criminal matters.
Point of law : Revisional jurisdiction can be exercised if there appears to be patent defect in exercise of jurisdiction or irregularities manifestly crept in while passing an order and this eventual....
Direction for Police Investigation – Option to direct registration of case and its investigation by police should be exercised where some “investigation” is required, which is of a nature that is not....
A Magistrate cannot register a subsequent complaint under Section 200 CrPC based on the same facts after a previous complaint has been quashed, as it exceeds jurisdiction.
The Magistrate must judiciously exercise discretion in registering FIRs under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., ensuring that mechanical refusals are avoided when cognizable offences are disclosed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
