1. Application under Section 156(3) CrPC for direction to register FIR for cheating and criminal intimidation from land transaction — Magistrate ordered registration — Petitioners seek quashing. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3074
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Sanjeev Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of HP – Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No. 273 of 2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sudhir Thakur, Karun Negi, Ashima Mandla, Parul Negi, Karan Singh Kanwar
For the Respondents: Ajit Sharma, Sudhir Thakur, Karun Negi
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sudhir Thakur, Karun Negi, Ashima Mandla, Parul Negi, Karan Singh Kanwar
For the Respondents: Ajit Sharma, Sudhir Thakur, Karun Negi
An FIR and Magistrate's order are liable to be quashed if the complainant fails to report the cognizable offence to the Officer in Charge of the Police Station under Section 154 CrPC before seeking relief from the Magistrate under Section 156(3).
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 154 and Section 156(3) - Registration of FIR - Mandatory requirement that information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence be furnished to the officer in charge of the police station - Approaching higher police officials instead of the station house officer does not constitute compliance with Section 154(1) - Complainant must exhaust remedies under Section 154(1) and 154(3) before approaching the Magistrate under Section 156(3). (Paras 16-17)
(B) Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Inherent powers of High Court - FIR may be quashed where the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence, represent an abuse of the legal process, or are based on a dispute that is purely civil in nature. (Paras 12-14)
Facts of the case:
Parties entered into an agreement to sell land, and while a portion was transferred via a sale deed, the remaining portion was not. A civil suit regarding the execution of the sale deed was pending. The complainant approached the Director General of Police and other senior officials for the registration of an FIR. Following this, an application was filed before the Magistrate, who subsequently ordered the registration of an FIR. The accused challenged the Magistrate's order and the ensuing FIR.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the complainant did not follow the mandatory procedural requirement of reporting the matter to the officer in charge of the police station. It held that the failure to exhaust the remedies provided under the law before approaching the Magistrate renders the order for registration of the FIR legally unsustainable.
Issues: Whether the registration of an FIR is valid when the complainant approaches senior police officials instead of the officer in charge of the police station, thereby bypassing the mandatory procedure under Section 154 of the CrPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that compliance with the requirement of furnishing information to the officer in charge of the police station under Section 154(1) is a prerequisite before seeking the Magistrate's intervention under Section 156(3). Non-compliance with this procedural mandate warrants the quashing of the order and the resulting FIR.
Result: Petitions allowed; order of the Magistrate and the FIR quashed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- crime and sentencing
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argued non-compliance with Section 154(1) CrPC and civil nature of dispute; applicant argued allegations disclose cognizable offences and civil suit no bar. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. Quashed FIR and Magistrate's order for non-compliance with Section 154(1) CrPC; applicant's petition dismissed as infructuous. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
4. What is the requirement under Section 154(1) CrPC before a complainant can seek a Magistrate's order under Section 156(3)?
The complainant must first furnish the information to the officer in charge of the police station; failure to do so renders the order under Section 156(3) invalid. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The present petitions have been filed against the order dated 10.6.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. (learned Trial Court) in
2. Since all the petitions have arisenH out of the common order, they are being taken up together for consideration.
3. Briefly stated, the factos giving rise to the present petitions are that the applicant, Sanjiv Kumar Sharma, filed an application before the learrned Trial Court seeking a direction to the Police of Police Station Kala Amb to register an FIR against the accused. It was asserted that accused Nos. 1 and 2, along with their mother, late Smt. Leela Kumari were the owners in possession of the land measuring 232-14 bighas, comprised in Khata/Khatuni No. 1min/1min, Khasra No.181/86, 182/86 and 470/85, situated at Mohal Ogli, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P., as per the Jamabandi for the year 2000-2001. Accused No.2 and 3 inherited the estate of Leela Kumari based on the Will executed by her. Accused No. 2 was acting as a General Power Attorney of Smt. Leela Kumari and he executed various agreements, receipts and sale deeds on her behalf. The accused entered into an agreement to sell the land to the applicant on 29.11.2004 in the presence of Arun Kumar Singla. This agreement was duly attested by Purshotam Singh Saini, Notary Public. The accused handed over the possession of the entire land to the applicant as per the agreement. The applicant also sold some portion of the land to third parties who developed and set up the industries. The applicant paid a total sale consideration of ₹1,49,66,250/- to the accused. The applicant also spent money on the development of the land. He requested the accused to execute the sale deedu, and a sale deed of 126.16 bigha out of the total land measuoring 230-05 bigha was executed in favour of the applicant. CThe accused promised to execute the sale deed of the remaining portion of the land measuring 103-09 bigha. The applicant asked the accused repeatedly to execute the sale deed, but they put off the matter on one pretext or another. The Haccused No.2 entered the land in February 2024 with many persons and threatened the applicant and his labourers to leave the land. The applicant thereafter requested accused Nos. 1 and 2 to execute the sale deed in his favour, but they put off the matter. The applicant also filed a civil suit in the Court of Learned Civil Judge, Nahan, which is pending. The accused belongs to the ruling party. The applicant approached the Director General of Police with the complaint, who forwarded it to Superintendent of Police, Sirmour, H.P., for investigation. An enquiry was conducted but no case was registered. Hence, the applicant filed an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, H.P. (learned Trial Court) for taking action against the accused as per the law.
4. Learned Trial Court held that mere pendency of the civil suit is no ground for not initiating criminal proceedings. Mere failure to execute the sale deed does not amount to cheating unless there is an intention to defraud the other party from the beginning. There is no allegation that any document was forged. The alle gations in the application disclosed the commission of offences punishable under Section 329(3), 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Hence, the application was forwarded to the SHO for the registration of the FIR and the proper investigation.
5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court and the registration of the FIR, three separate petitions have been filed.
6. I have heard Ms. Ashima Mandla, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Abhay Bahadur Singh and Ajay Bahadur Singh, Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused Sangram Singh, Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Karun Negi, learned counsel for the applicant Sanjeev Kumar Sharma and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Dep
