Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(All) 1256

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)
Virendra Kumar-II, J.
Ram Khelawan - Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P. and Ors.- Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2021
Decided On : 08-01-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the appellant : Dinesh Kumar
For the Respondents: G.A.

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 FIR registration.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 156(3) and 190 - Dismissal of a complaint at pre-cognizance stage - The discretion to register an FIR lies with the Magistrate, who may opt to order an investigation under Section 156(3) only prior to taking cognizance - The Magistrate's failure to register an FIR requires careful application of mind regarding the allegations presented, as a cursory dismissal was deemed improper. (Paras 1, 2, 8, 11, 13)

(B) Judicial Discretion - The crucial distinction lies in whether the Magistrate takes cognizance before or after invoking Section 156(3), where the latter allows for initial police investigation without formal cognizance, thereby changing the procedural landscape for complaints. (Paras 12, 10)

Facts of the case:
The appeal challenged the dismissal of a complaint by the Special Judge, asserting it was improperly rejected under Section 156(3) without adequate judicial consideration of the merits of the allegations raised by the complainant. The allegations included serious offenses; however, the Magistrate did not provide justification for denying the registration of an FIR.

Findings of Court:
The court asserted that the rejection of the complaint did not preclude the complainant from filing a new case and emphasized that the learned Magistrate must judiciously utilize the discretion conferred under Section 156(3). The appellate court highlighted the importance of safeguarding against frivolous complaints while ensuring the rights of genuinely aggrieved parties.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the Magistrate exercised proper judicial discretion in refusing to direct the police to register an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Code, in light of the severity of the allegations presented in the complaint.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that a Magistrate must not dismiss an application under Section 156(3) without proper application of mind to the allegations that disclose a cognizable offense, emphasizing the necessity of judicious discretion in these matters. It ruled that such dismissals must reflect adequate reasoning, beyond mere formalities.

Result: Appeal dismissed, with the court affirming that the complainant retains the right to file a regular complaint despite the dismissal of the initial application under Section 156(3).

Table of Content
1. initial case introduction and procedural context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. magistrate’s discretion and authority under section 156(3). (Para 4 , 5)

ORDER :

Virendra Kumar-II, J.

1. Heard Shri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for appellant and the learned AGA for the State.

2. This appeal has been preferred assailing the impugned order dated 28.10.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), District Sitapur in Crl. Case No. 157 of 2020 (C.I.S. No. 278 of 2020), Ram Khelawan Vs. Manager, U.P. gram Vikas Bank Tambour Sitapur and another, by which the complaint instituted by the appellant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has been dismissed at pre-cognizance stage and discretion has not been exercised in favour of complainant.

3. I have perused the record made available by the appellant/complainant.

4. A primary duty to register First Information Report (F.I.R) regarding cognizable offence is of the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station, if the Police Officer/Incharge does not register the F.I.R. then the Magistrate having jurisdiction to hear criminal case of the police station concerned has been empowered to issue directions under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to register and investigate the fact and circumstances narrated in the complaint. the relevant provisions defining the complaint and the procedure adopted by the concerned Magistrate is provided under the various provision of the Cr.P.C. At a post cognizance stage, the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance on the complaint and may adopt procedure provided under section 200, 202 of Cr.P.C. The relevant provisions are as follows:-

Provision of Sec. 2(d) of Cr.P.C. defines complaint and Section 154 of Cr.P.C. provides procedure for recording of First Information Report at Police Station Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C.-

"complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.

Explanation.--A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant;

Section 154 in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

154. Information in cognizable cases.--

(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf:

(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.

(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in subsection (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.

Section 156 in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case.

(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(All) 1256

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)Virendra Kumar-II, J.Ram Khelawan - AppellantsVs.State of U.P. and Ors.- RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 21 of 2021Decided On : 08-01-2021

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 FIR registration.

Cases Referred (37)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)
Virendra Kumar-II, J.
Ram Khelawan - Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P. and Ors.- Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2021
Decided On : 08-01-2021