SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 403

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Md. Nejam Ansari son of Md. Usman – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent 
Cr.M.P. No. 1435 of 2024
Decided on : 13-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Parambir S. Bajaj, Advocate Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Shiv S. Kumar, Addl. P.P. Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate

Magistrate must apply judicial mind and reflect it in order when directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC; mere endorsement without reasons or affidavit support invalidates FIR and proceedings, warranting quashing.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 156(3) and 482 - Magistrate directing police investigation - Must apply judicial mind, reflected in order - Mere endorsement on complaint without stating reasons or perusal of complaint/documents/hearing complainant insufficient - Complaint not supported by affidavit - Directions in relevant precedents mandatory; non-filing of affidavit curable defect but to be cured before substantive order - FIR and proceedings quashed for non-compliance; Magistrate directed to pass fresh orders. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
Informant filed complaint which Magistrate suo motu referred to police under Section 156(3) without affidavit support, no order sheet, only endorsement to institute FIR and investigate. Petitioner sought quashing of FIR and proceedings under Section 482.

Findings of Court:
FIR registration quashed and set aside; Magistrate directed to pass fresh appropriate orders on complaint in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether Magistrate's referral order valid without application of judicial mind reflected therein and without supporting affidavit; whether proceedings quashable on non-compliance grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) required to apply judicial mind, reflected in order specifying what weighed for direction; mere endorsement fails this; non-compliance with affidavit requirement before substantive order warrants quashing.

Result: Petition allowed to extent indicated.

Table of Content
1. petition to quash fir from improper s.156(3) referral without affidavit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments invoke sc precedents mandating magistrate's reflected judicial mind, affidavit. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. court finds no judicial mind in bare endorsement under s.156(3). (Para 9 , 10)
4. quash fir; direct fresh lawful orders on complaint. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking thejurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 317 of 2021 as well as the order dated 13.08.2021 by which the FIR has been registered upon the Complaint Case No. 1640 of 2021 filed by the informant havingbeen referred to police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the informant filed Complaint Case No. 1640 of 2021 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh suo moto referred the said complaint to the Officer-in-Charge of Sadar Police Station, Hazaribagh under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. even though the complaint was not supported by any affidavit. No order sheet was drawn up by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh and following endorsement was only made in the complaint:-

“Copy forwarded to the O/c Sadar P.S. under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for institute FIR and investigation. Sd/- CJM 13.08.2021”

4. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anil Kumar & Ors. vs. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr. reported (2013) 10 SCC 705, paragraph no. 11 of which reads as under:-

“11. The scope of Section 156(3) CrPC came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. This Court in Maksud Saiyed case [(2008) 5 SCC 668 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 692] examined the requirement of the application of mind by the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) and held that where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in such a case, the Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter under Section 156(3) against a public servant without a valid sanction order. The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient. After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. We have already extracted the order passed by the learned Special Judge which, in our view, has stated no reasons for ordering investigation.” (Emphasis supplied)

it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that therein, it has categorically been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relying upon its judgment in the case of Maksud Saiyed vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2008) 5 SCC 668 that the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is required to apply his judicial mind and in such a case the application of judicial mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order concerned. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant as such will not be sufficient.

5. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, the Magistrate has not even mentioned that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant before making the endorsement on the complaint referring the complaint to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and expect the said endorsement made on t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top