Back
Thoufeeq – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
The legal decision clarifies that a Magistrate retains the authority to direct the registration of an FIR even after proceedings have been initiated under section 202 of the Cr.P.C. (!) (!) . The Court emphasizes that the powers under section 156(3) are applicable at the pre-cognizance stage, allowing for police investigation before the Magistrate takes cognizance. However, once cognizance has been taken and proceedings have begun under section 202, the Magistrate can still exercise the power to direct investigation under section 156(3), as this is permissible at the post-cognizance stage (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the Court highlights that the procedure adopted by the Magistrate in directing the registration of the FIR after initiating proceedings under section 202 was neither irregular nor illegal (!) (!) . The decision underscores that the restriction on Magistrates exercising powers under section 156(3) only applies at the pre-cognizance stage, and not after cognizance has been taken (!) (!) .
In conclusion, the Court set aside the orders discharging the accused under certain sections and clarified that a Magistrate can order FIR registration even after proceedings under section 202 have commenced, provided the legal framework and procedural requirements are satisfied (!) .
JUDGMENT :
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
The question that arises in this case is whether a Magistrate is precluded from directing registration of an FIR, despite the commencement of proceedings under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Petitioner challenges an order of discharge of the accused in C.C. No.473/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Pattambi. Petitioner was the defacto complainant in Crime No.661/2017 of the Pattambi Police Station. The crime was registered alleging that the accused and the defacto complainant along with CWs 2 and 3 had started a partnership business by the name ‘M/s.Shalimar Granite’. During the period between 2010-2016, the accused allegedly forged the partnership deed and other documents for cheating the defacto complainant and others and fraudulently obtained property and subsequently submitted those documents to the authorities knowing that those are forged and thereby committed the offences under sections 406, 417, 465, 468 and 475 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). In a nutshell, the complainant alleged that the partnership deed contained a forged schedule, which was not part of the original
A Magistrate can direct FIR registration even after commencing proceedings under section 202 Cr.P.C, clarifying the powers under sections 156(3) and 202.
The word “cognizance” has not been defined under Cr.P.C. To unveil the legal quandary, a brief survey of 'Cognizance' would illuminate everything, clearing all concepts, therefore, this Court is refe....
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....
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.
The judgment establishes the principle that once cognizance of offences is taken, the trial Magistrate cannot direct registration of an FIR and emphasizes the importance of adhering to the procedural....
A Magistrate cannot revert to the pre-cognizance stage after taking cognizance of a complaint, making the order to register an FIR legally untenable.
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
