Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
In some cases, the courts have directed Magistrates to re-examine applications under Section 156(3) in light of judicial observations and to ensure fair hearing ["Shamshad Ahmad Vs. State Of U.P. And Another - Allahabad"], ["Shamshad Ahmad VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"].
Main points related to appellate and revisional proceedings:
Orders granting or refusing investigation are subject to judicial review in revisional courts, which must ensure proper procedure and opportunity for hearing ["Shamshad Ahmad Vs. State Of U.P. And Another - Allahabad"].
Overall Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Jaipur Ex-Servicemen Welfare Coop. Society VS State - Rajasthan"]- ["UDAY KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY ALIAS CHATTERJEE VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2007 0 Supreme(Cal) 275"]- ["Ruchi Mittal @ Smt Ruchi Garg VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]- ["Ram Dayal VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"]- ["MOTI LAL NAYAK S/O LATE SHRI DHANNA LAL NAYAK, BY CASTE NAYAK vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"]- ["Shamshad Ahmad Vs. State Of U.P. And Another - Allahabad"]- ["SANJAY KUMAR GAUR & ANR. Vs STATE GNCT OF DELHI & ORS. - Delhi"]- ["ARUN GARG Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS - Punjab and Haryana"]
In the realm of criminal law in India, complainants often turn to Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to seek police investigation into cognizable offenses when the police initially refuse to register an FIR. But what happens when the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) rejects the petition under Section 156(3), and the complainant's subsequent appeal before the Sessions Judge is also turned down? This is a common yet perplexing scenario: 156(3) has been rejected by the Learned ACJM thereafter complainant preferred appeal before the Session Judge same has been turn down.
This blog post delves into the legal intricacies, drawing from key judicial precedents, to explain why such rejections—especially after an initial directive for investigation—may be impermissible, your appeal rights, and practical remedies. We'll explore Supreme Court clarifications and related case laws to provide clarity for complainants navigating these challenges.
Section 156(3) CrPC empowers a Magistrate to order the police to investigate a cognizable offense upon receiving a complaint. This provision is crucial when police refuse to act on information disclosing such an offense. Once ordered, the complaint is treated as an FIR, initiating formal investigation UDAY KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY ALIAS CHATTERJEE VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2007 0 Supreme(Cal) 275.
However, complications arise if the Magistrate later rejects or drops the case, as seen in scenarios where initial orders are undermined.
In the described situation, the ACJM rejects the Section 156(3) petition outright, prompting an appeal to the Sessions Judge under Section 397 or revisional jurisdiction, which is also dismissed. Legally, a outright rejection is possible if no prima facie case exists, but problems emerge if an investigation was previously directed.
The main legal finding is clear: The rejection of a case by a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P. C.) is legally impermissible once the Magistrate has ordered an investigation treating a complaint as an FIR. Such an order under Section 156(3) confers authority to the police to investigate, and subsequent rejection or dropping of the case without proper legal grounds constitutes an illegal act UDAY KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY ALIAS CHATTERJEE VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2007 0 Supreme(Cal) 275.
Here, the Magistrate cannot review or recall their own order directing investigation, as it forms part of the judicial record UDAY KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY ALIAS CHATTERJEE VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2007 0 Supreme(Cal) 275.
In one case, the Magistrate directed investigation on an initial petition but later dropped it on 9.1.07, held illegal as contradicting the binding prior order UDAY KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY ALIAS CHATTERJEE VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2007 0 Supreme(Cal) 275.
The landmark Supreme Court decision in Trisuns Chemical Industries v. Rajesh Agrawal provides pivotal guidance UDAY KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY ALIAS CHATTERJEE VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2007 0 Supreme(Cal) 275. The Court held:
A Magistrate of the First Class has the power to take cognizance of any offence, regardless of territorial jurisdiction. The power to initiate proceedings (cognizance) is separate from the power to try the case UDAY KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY ALIAS CHATTERJEE VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2007 0 Supreme(Cal) 275.
It further clarified that jurisdictional challenges are premature at the investigation stage. Crucially, The Magistrate is not empowered to review or recall his own order UDAY KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY ALIAS CHATTERJEE VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2007 0 Supreme(Cal) 275. This directly impacts cases where ACJM rejections follow initial probes.
If the ACJM rejects the Section 156(3) petition:
In related appeals, courts have set aside Sessions Judge orders directing further probes or allowing appeals VIJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI @ VIJJU S/O SHER SINGH BHANDARI vs STATE OF RAJASTHANJUGAL KISHORE SHARMA SHUKLA vs STATE AND ANR.
Magistrates may treat a rejected Section 156(3) application as a complaint under Section 200 CrPC, proceeding with inquiry JAYVEER SINGH VS STATE OF U. P. - 2013 Supreme(All) 2688. This is lawful: It is settled position that Magistrate has power to treat application under Section 156(3) as a complaint—In case application under said section is rejected—Remedy is available to file complaint JAYVEER SINGH VS STATE OF U. P. - 2013 Supreme(All) 2688. However, Special Judges (e.g., under SC/ST Act) cannot do so; they must reject outright Soni Devi VS State Of U. P. - 2022 Supreme(All) 192.
Question that the Special Judge can treat the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case or not? Answer is No Soni Devi VS State Of U. P. - 2022 Supreme(All) 192.
Not all rejections are invalid:
Other precedents reinforce remedies:- High Courts direct Sessions Judges to rehear appeals VIJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI @ VIJJU S/O SHER SINGH BHANDARI vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN.- Revisions succeed if Sessions Judge overlooks hearing opportunities MOTI LAL NAYAK S/O LATE SHRI DHANNA LAL NAYAK, BY CASTE NAYAK vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN.
Magistrates should refrain from arbitrary reversals: Once directed to investigate, the case must be proceeded with UDAY KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY ALIAS CHATTERJEE VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2007 0 Supreme(Cal) 275.
In conclusion, while initial rejections occur, judicial oversight ensures fairness. This analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance, as outcomes depend on facts and jurisdiction.
#CrPC1563 #LegalAppeal #CriminalLawIndia
The Magistrate has only rejected the application of the complainant for sending the complainant to the police under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before recording his statement. ... The application dated 4.1.2012 filed by the complainant for sending the complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the police station concerned before recording the statement of the complainant was rightly rejected by the ACJM....
The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C. The accused directors moved the High court of Gujarat under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. and a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court quashed the complaint. ... The learned Magistrate thereafter by the impugned order dated 9. 1. 07 dropped the case and at the same time he rejected the petition under Section 156 (3) of the ....
Amit Mittal and others), under Section 156(3) CrPC treating the application under Section 156(3) CrPC to be a complaint case. ... Learned counsel for the applicant also argued that first of all the application under Section 156(3) CrPC was moved in the Court of ACJM-II but the PO found it difficult to decide the application as the opposite party no.1 is the practicing lawyer in Gautam Budh Nagar, therefore, on the request of ACJM-II....
Judge and rejected by him. ... However, in view of the statutory provisions both cases went before different forums i.e. the appeal against acquittal in FIR case has been filed before the learned Additional Session Judge, Gurugram and leave to appeal against acquittal in complaint case has been filed before this Court and both the ... (4) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by ....
At the stage of revision, the learned Additional Session Judge has not given opportunity of hearing to to the concerned ACJM for reexamining the final report and no. 229/2012 was rejected. ... Judge to give opportunity of hearing the petitioners before deciding the revision petition filed by the complainant.
dated 28.05.2020 passed by learned Session Judge, Kota, Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal. ... The appellant has prefered this appeal aggrieved by order The order dated 28.05.2020 passed by learned Session Judge, Kota is set aside and the appeal is allowed and the appellant is directed
Additional Session Judge, Sawai Madhopur whereby the learned Judge has directed the police to Cr.P.C. on 19.05.2007.
ACJM, Jalore. ... petition and impugned order dated 27.01.2016 passed by learned Session Judge, Jalore, and order dated 27.01.2016 dismissed the revision petition, while Ahore under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation, upon which a the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by learned ACJM, span style="font-family:Verdana,serif
Learned Revisional Court observed that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 3.3.2021 was clear in violation of the observations of Additional Session Judge, in revisional order dated 19.1.2021, passed in Criminal Revision No.82 of 2020. 8. ... application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. ... Feeling aggrieved by this order, the applicant filed a Criminal Revision before the court of Session, which was deci....
Learned Revisional Court observed that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 3.3.2021 was clear in violation of the observations of Additional Session Judge, in revisional order dated 19.1.2021, passed in Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2020. ... Feeling aggrieved by this order, the applicant filed a Criminal Revision before the court of Session, which was decided by learned Additional Session Judge....
That order, in the considered opinion of the Court is also not sustainable. In the connected fourth case before this Court is Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 No. 4382 of 2012, the complainant has challenged the order 12.10.2021 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Allahabad by which the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
6. That after declaration of the Juvenile bail application was moved on behalf of the revisionist before the learned Juvenile Justice Board Agra, and the same has been rejected by the Board vide order dated 9.8.2011, thereafter against the order dated 9.8.2011 the revisionist preferred an appeal before the learned Session Judge, Agra and the same has also been rejected by order dated 15.9.2011 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.
6. The aforesaid judgment and order dated 1.3.2012 passed by the learned Session Judge has been challenged before this Court by way of jail appeal. This Court appointed Mr. Lalfakawma learned counsel as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court.
6. The aforesaid judgment and order dated 1.3.2012 passed by the learned Session Judge has been challenged before this court by way of jail appeal. This court appointed Mr. Lalfakawma learned counsel as amicus curiae to assist this court.
Therefore, the aforesaid law which also appears to be contrary to the Full Bench decision in Father Thomas v. State of U.P. (Supra) is not applicable. 7. In the present case, the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has not been rejected but that has been treated to be a complaint.
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
