IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SOPHY THOMAS, J.
Udayakumar S/o Haridas – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Crl. M.C. No. 4592 of 2022
Decided On : 24-11-2023
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash criminal proceedings based on a complaint forwarded by a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., arguing that the transaction was purely civil in nature.Finding of the Court:
The court held that challenging the investigation process initiated by the police before collecting details as to the commission of the alleged offense was premature.Issues:
Whether a person accused in a crime registered based on a complaint from a Magistrate can challenge the investigation process initiated by Police before being charged for a cognizable offense.Ratio Decidendi:
Interference with police investigation should only occur in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in a miscarriage of justice.Final Decision:
The Criminal Miscellaneous Case was dismissed as premature.ORDER :
1. The petitioner, who is arrayed as an accused in Crime No. 245 of 2022 of Ayiroor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, filed this Crl. M.C. to quash the proceedings in Annexure-B FIR.
2. Annexure-B FIR was registered on the basis of a private complaint preferred by the 3rd respondent herein before JFCM-I, Varkala, which was forwarded to SHO of Ayiroor Police Station for investigation and report under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner would submit that, the transaction involved is purely civil in nature, and so, criminal prosecution will not lie based on that complaint. So, his prayer is to quash Annexure-B FIR, and the proceedings pursuant thereto.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.
4. The short and interesting question to be answered in this case is, can a person who was arrayed as an accused in a crime registered on the basis of a complaint forwarded from Magistrate Court under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. can challenge the investigation process initiated by Police, even before collecting details as to the commission of the offence alleged, and before charging him for a cognizable offence.
5. Section 156 Cr.P.C. reads thus:
“156. Police Officer's power to investigate cognizable case:
(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned.”
6. Section 156 of Cr.P.C. envisages investigation by a Police officer regarding cognizable offences either with the order of a Magistrate or without the order of a Magistrate. Section 156(2) is applicable to the investigation undertaken under clause (1) and clause (3) as well. As per clause (2), no proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
7. As we know, investigation is the province of police. In order to find out the truth, they have to investigate the case by collecting materials, without any interventions or inhibitions. On investigation, if commission of a cognizable offence is made out, the investigating officer is bound to file final report charging the offender for the offences committed by him. When no offence is made out during investigation, then also the investigating officer will send a final report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. to the jurisdictional court, with a request to close it treating the complaint/First Information Statement, as false or on mistaken fact. When a complaint is investigated by Police, on the basis of a direction given by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. even if the Police refer the case as false or mistaken, then also the complainant can pursue the matter further, as per Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
8. When a crime registered by the Police on the basis of a complaint forwarded by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is pending investigation, it cannot be said that the person arrayed as an accused in the FIR is aggrieved by registering that crime. When a complaint is forwarded by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation, the SHO concerned is duty bound to register a crime and to investigate the matter. Column 7 of the printed FIR asks for the details of the known/ identifiable/suspected/unknown accused with full particulars. The name of the petitioner is shown in column 7 of Annexure-B FIR, as he was the respondent in Annexure-A complaint forwarded to the Police Station
AI
Interference with police investigation should be limited to exceptional cases where non-interference would result in a miscarriage of justice.
Point of law: Any Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of an offence, can order investigation under S.156(3) of the Code and in doing so, he is not required to examine the complainant since ....
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....
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.
A Magistrate must exercise judicial discretion and apply mind before directing police investigations under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
Point of Law : Need for police investigation depends upon nature of allegations.
A Magistrate cannot revert to the pre-cognizance stage after taking cognizance of a complaint, making the order to register an FIR legally untenable.
A Magistrate has discretion under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to either take cognizance or direct investigation by police, thus not legally bound to register an FIR.
The court ruled that a Magistrate must exercise careful judicial discretion when considering an application under Section 156(3), ensuring each complaint is evaluated adequately before deciding on FI....
Police lack authority to investigate non-cognizable offences without a Magistrate's order, making subsequent FIR registrations invalid and procedural lapses inherently illegal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.