Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 10237
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J
SHANMUGA SUNDARAM – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 8855 of 2018
A private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be filed without prior compliance with Section 154, ensuring responsible litigation and judicial oversight.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 200 and Section 156(3) - Quashing of proceedings - Petitioners sought to quash the proceedings in PCR No.12773/2018 and FIR No.528/2018, arguing non-compliance with Section 154 requirements - The court emphasized the necessity of prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) before invoking Section 156(3) - The court referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Priyanka Srivastava's case regarding the need for a principled approach in invoking magistrate's authority. (Paras 3, 5, 6)
(B) Judicial oversight - The court highlighted the importance of judicial scrutiny in applications under Section 156(3) to prevent misuse and ensure responsible litigation. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the registration of FIR and proceedings initiated by the respondent, claiming that the complainant failed to approach superior officers before filing a private complaint.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings and FIR, while allowing the respondent to comply with the Supreme Court's requirements.
Issues: The main issues were the compliance with procedural requirements under Section 154 and the proper invocation of Section 156(3).
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a private complaint under Section 200 cannot be filed without prior compliance with Section 154, emphasizing the need for responsible litigation and judicial oversight.
Result: Criminal Petition is allowed.
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Quash the entire proceedings in P.C.R.No.12773/2018 including the order dated 28.09.208, therein pending in the court of the IV ACMM, Bangalore, and the pursuant registration of the case in the Crime No.528/2018 of Peenya Police Station, Bangalore for the offences P/U/S 506, 34, 468, 465, 420, 504 of the IPC, in so far as the they are concerned.
2. Respondent No.2 had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) which came to be numbered as PCR No.12773/2018. The said private complaint had been filed alleging that when the complainant had approached the Jurisdictional Police, the same was registered as NCR and no action was taken and it is in that background that the complainant sought for the Magistrate to refer the matter for investigation under subsection (3) of Section 156 of the erstwhile Cr.P.C. In furtherance thereof, the Magistrate vide its order dated 28.9.2018 referred the matter to the Peenya Police for investigation under subsection (3) of Section 156 of Cr.P.C. The jurisdictional police have registered FIR in Crime No.528/2018. It is challenging the same, Petitioners are before this Court.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the requirement of subsection (3) of Section 154 has not been complied with by the complainant inasmuch as if the jurisdictional police were not to register a FIR and proceed with the investigation, it was required of the complainant to approach the superior officer with the details thereof requesting the superior officer to take necessary action. The same not having been done, a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. could not have been filed which is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court inPriyanka Srivatsava’s case.
4. Though the Respondent - Complainant has been served, there is no representation on part of the said Complainant.
5. A perusal of the averments made in the private complaint would indicate that the only effort which has been made by the complainant is to file a complaint before the Station House officer who has registered a NCR. Thereafter, he has directly filed a PCR without approaching the superior authorities of the Station House officer. In that view of the matter, the above manner of proceeding by the complainant is contrary to the dicta laid down by the Honorable Apex Court in Priyanka Srivatsava and anr vs. State of U.P. and ors., [AIR 2015 SC 1758] more particularly Para Nos.26 and 27, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
26. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellows citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same.
27. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of said Act or under Article 226
