AI Thinking...

Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Sakiri Vasu VS State of U. P. and others...

Checking relevance for Ranjit Singh Bath VS Union Territory Chandigarh...

Checking relevance for M. SUBRAMANIAM VS S. JANAKI...

Checking relevance for State Of Haryana VS Bhajan Lal...

Checking relevance for Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. VS State of Maharashtra...

Checking relevance for Srinivas Gundluri VS SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation...

Checking relevance for Aruna Kannur, D/o. R. G. Pujar VS State of Karnataka, By Kengeri Police Station, Rep. by Public Prosecutor...

Checking relevance for Parshant Vashishta VS State of Chhattisgarh...

Checking relevance for Gopi Lal Bharti VS Jyotiraditya M. Scindia R/o 1...

Checking relevance for Mithun Kushwaha VS State of Madhya Pradesh...

Checking relevance for Parshant Vashishta, S/o. Shri Banarsi Das Vashishta VS State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Home, Raipur (C. G. )...

Checking relevance for Jwala Jambuvantrao Dhote VS Commissioner of Police, C. P. Office, Sadar, Nagpur...

Checking relevance for Pooja @ Gurinder Kaur Kainth VS State of Punjab...

Checking relevance for Central Bureau Of Investigation Through S. P. , Jaipur VS State Of Rajasthan...

Checking relevance for Anil Kumar VS M. K. Aiyappa...

Checking relevance for FATHER THOMAS VS STATE OF U. P. ...

Checking relevance for Vasanti Dubey VS State of Madhya Pradesh...

Checking relevance for RAMDEV FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS STATE OF GUJARAT...

Checking relevance for SUPERINTENDENT AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS VS ABANI KUMAR BANERJEE...

Checking relevance for L. NARAYANA SWAMY VS STATE OF KARNATAKA...

Checking relevance for D. Ramesh S/o Duraisamy VS V. Vijayakumar S/o Davidraj...

Checking relevance for MAGADI SHANKAR RAO KRISHNA MURTHY VS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE...

Checking relevance for Magadi Shankar Rao Krishna Murthy VS Commissioner of Police Bangalore...

Checking relevance for T. Srinivasa Rao VS State and Koroor Vysya Bank...

AI Overview...

Representation under Section 156(3) can be given to the Commissioner of Police instead of the Superintendent of Police. This is supported by multiple judgments emphasizing that the remedy available under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not restricted solely to the Superintendent but extends to higher police authorities, including the Commissioner of Police, especially when the grievance persists after approaching the Superintendent ["G. Prabakaran VS Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur - Madras"], ["Bhavani vs The Commissioner of police - Madras"], ["Z.Lenington vs The Superintendent of Police - Madras"].
The provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. allow a person to approach a Magistrate directly if police inaction or refusal to register a FIR occurs after the complainant has exhausted remedies with police officers such as the Station House Officer or the Superintendent of Police. The courts have clarified that the complaint can be addressed to the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C., and subsequently, if no action is taken, the complaint can be made to the Magistrate ["Atul Ashok Mundada VS State of Maharashtra - Bombay"], ["G. Prabakaran VS Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur - Madras"], ["Bhavani vs The Commissioner of police - Madras"].
Several judgments state that the application under Section 156(3) can be made to the Magistrate either directly or through higher police authorities like the Superintendent of Police or the Commissioner of Police. The key point is that the complaint should be made to a police officer with the authority to act, and if inaction persists, the Magistrate can be approached. The courts recognize the authority of the Commissioner of Police to receive and act upon such complaints, especially in metropolitan or large jurisdictions ["Z.Lenington vs The Superintendent of Police - Madras"], ["Bhavani vs The Commissioner of police - Madras"].
The courts have reiterated that the remedy under Section 156(3) is not merely an alternative but is part of the inherent powers of the Magistrate to ensure proper investigation when police fail to act. The complaint can thus be addressed to the Commissioner of Police, and the Magistrate's power to order investigation under Section 156(3) is exercisable irrespective of whether the complaint was initially made to the Superintendent or the Commissioner ["Bhavani vs The Commissioner of police - Madras"], ["Z.Lenington vs The Superintendent of Police - Madras"].
It is also emphasized that the initial complaint should be made to the police officer in charge of the concerned police station or to the higher authorities like the Superintendent or Commissioner if the police do not act. The courts have held that the representation can be given to the Commissioner of Police directly, especially in cases where the police authorities are unresponsive, and this is consistent with the statutory scheme of the Cr.P.C. ["Anthonydharmaraj .A vs The Commissioner of Police - Madras"], ["Z.Lenington vs The Superintendent of Police - Madras"].

Analysis and Conclusion:The provisions and judicial interpretations clearly establish that under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., a complaint can be addressed not only to the Superintendent of Police but also directly to the Commissioner of Police. This is particularly relevant in cases of police inaction or refusal to register FIRs, where the complainant's remedy lies in approaching higher police authorities, including the Commissioner of Police, before seeking intervention from the Magistrate. The courts recognize the Commissioner of Police as a competent authority to receive such complaints and to initiate investigation proceedings under Section 156(3). Therefore, representation under Section 156(3) can validly be given to the Commissioner of Police instead of the Superintendent of Police.

Can Police Get Representation Under Section 156(3) CrPC?

In the realm of criminal procedure in India, Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) plays a pivotal role when it comes to directing police investigations for cognizable offences. But a common query arises: Representation under section 156(3) can be given to commissioner of police also instead of superintendent? This question touches on the procedural boundaries of police involvement in magisterial proceedings. While police officers like Superintendents or Commissioners are key figures in law enforcement, does this section grant them formal legal representation or standing?

This blog post delves into the legal framework, judicial interpretations, and practical remedies, drawing from established case laws and statutory provisions. Note: This is general information and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.

What is Section 156(3) CrPC?

Section 156(3) CrPC empowers any Magistrate under Section 190 to order an investigation into a cognizable offence by the officer-in-charge of a police station, as referenced in Section 156(1). Mithun Kushwaha VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 1271 This provision acts as a judicial oversight tool, ensuring that police conduct thorough investigations when a cognizable offence is suspected.

The language is clear: Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned. Mithun Kushwaha VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 1271 It facilitates prompt action but is strictly procedural, focusing on directing police rather than conferring rights on them.

Key features include:- Magistrate's discretion: Orders investigation without taking cognizance of the offence initially.- Police obligation: The police must comply and submit a report under Section 173.- No adversarial proceeding: It's not a trial-like setup where parties appear. MAHENDRA PAL SINGH VS STATE OF U P - 1997 0 Supreme(All) 371

Does Section 156(3) Allow Police Representation?

The short answer, based on legal analysis and precedents, is no. Section 156(3) does not explicitly or implicitly provide legal representation or standing to police authorities, whether Superintendent of Police (SP), Commissioner of Police, or others. Police are treated as executing agents under the Magistrate's directions, not as parties with independent rights. MAHENDRA PAL SINGH VS STATE OF U P - 1997 0 Supreme(All) 371

Courts have emphasized: Judicial decisions emphasize that Magistrates' role is to direct investigation and ensure proper police action; police authorities are not parties in the proceedings but are subject to Magistrates' directions. MAHENDRA PAL SINGH VS STATE OF U P - 1997 0 Supreme(All) 371 (https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500035124)

Role of Police Authorities

Police officers, including Commissioners or SPs, do not have a formal right to appear or be represented in proceedings under this section. Their role is subordinate: to investigate as directed. MAHENDRA PAL SINGH VS STATE OF U P - 1997 0 Supreme(All) 371 This distinction prevents police from claiming party status, which could blur the lines between investigation and adjudication.

Judicial Interpretations and Case Law

No direct precedent mandates representation for police under Section 156(3). Instead, rulings reinforce the Magistrate's supervisory power. For instance, The provision facilitates judicial oversight over police investigation but does not explicitly provide for police authorities to seek or be granted legal representation under this section. MAHENDRA PAL SINGH VS STATE OF U P - 1997 0 Supreme(All) 371 (https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500035124)

In related contexts, courts clarify hierarchies:- If police fail to register an FIR, the aggrieved party approaches the SP under Section 154(3) CrPC. Manjula Daughter of Late Rati Kanta Sarma vs State of Assam Represented by The Commissioner and Secretary - 2025 Supreme(Gau) 609 If a person has the grievance that FIR has not been registered by the police, the remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.PC. SOHAIL MALIK Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 129- Only if unresolved, approach the Magistrate under 156(3). Vijay Sharma VS State of J&K - 2019 Supreme(J&K) 238 If, despite approaching Superintendent of Police... his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. Vijay Sharma VS State of J&K - 2019 Supreme(J&K) 238

These cases highlight complainant remedies, not police rights. Manjula Daughter of Late Rati Kanta Sarma vs State of Assam Represented by The Commissioner and Secretary - 2025 Supreme(Gau) 609 Courts caution against bypassing remedies: The court emphasized that a petitioner must exhaust alternative remedies under the CrPC and BNSS before seeking relief under Article 226. Manjula Daughter of Late Rati Kanta Sarma vs State of Assam Represented by The Commissioner and Secretary - 2025 Supreme(Gau) 609

Another ruling notes: Superintendent of Police under Section 1734, supported by an affidavit, while making the application to the Magistrate under Section 1753. Manjula Daughter of Late Rati Kanta Sarma vs State of Assam Represented by The Commissioner and Secretary - 2025 Supreme(Gau) 609 This pertains to reporting, not representation as parties.

Superintendent vs. Commissioner of Police

The query specifies commissioner of police also instead of superintendent. Typically, Section 154(3) directs complaints to the SP. Higher officers like Commissioners may oversee, but neither gets representation under 156(3). Police interventions occur via reports or affidavits, not as litigants. MAHENDRA PAL SINGH VS STATE OF U P - 1997 0 Supreme(All) 371

In one case: Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police made representation before the District Magistrate for taking action under section 3(2) of National Security Act. Babar Ali VS State of M. P. - 2019 Supreme(MP) 17 This was outside 156(3), under NSA, showing contextual representations but not under CrPC 156(3).

Exceptions, Limitations, and Related Provisions

While no direct representation rights exist, nuances include:- Witness appearances: Police may appear for reporting or as witnesses, but not as represented parties. MAHENDRA PAL SINGH VS STATE OF U P - 1997 0 Supreme(All) 371- Other sections: Sections 124, 154, 190, 200, 482 CrPC handle procedures but don't grant police standing under 156(3). Shiv Dulari VS State of U. P. - 2014 0 Supreme(All) 3059- Alternative remedies: Exhaust SP under 154(3) or Section 36 officers before Magistrate. M.Marimurugan vs The Chairman and Managing Di - 2020 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 23671 If the person who received the complaint has not initiated any action, another option is also available... to approach the higher police officers. M.Marimurugan vs The Chairman and Managing Di - 2020 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 23671- High Court restraint: Writs under Article 226 are discouraged if remedies exist. Manjula Daughter of Late Rati Kanta Sarma vs State of Assam Represented by The Commissioner and Secretary - 2025 Supreme(Gau) 609

Courts warn: Police authorities can be called upon or directed by the Magistrate to investigate, but they do not have a right to appear as parties. MAHENDRA PAL SINGH VS STATE OF U P - 1997 0 Supreme(All) 371 (https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500035124)

Practical Remedies for FIR and Investigation Issues

For complainants:1. Approach police station under Section 154(1).2. Escalate to SP under 154(3) or Section 36 officer. Prabhu Nath Singh vs State Of West Bengal - 2025 Supreme(Cal) 9423. File before Magistrate under 156(3) if needed. HT. KILACHING ANAL vs STATE OF MANIPUR AND 3 OTHERS

The warrant for giving a direction that an application Section 156(3). Prabhu Nath Singh vs State Of West Bengal - 2025 Supreme(Cal) 942 Magistrates must apply mind before ordering. Ashok Kumar Ojha VS Jayhind Chaturvedi - 2016 Supreme(MP) 1165

Police focus on compliance, submitting reports like under Section 173(4). Manjula Daughter of Late Rati Kanta Sarma vs State of Assam Represented by The Commissioner and Secretary - 2025 Supreme(Gau) 609

Recommendations

For police: Execute directions via reports/affidavits; avoid claiming party status.
For Magistrates: Use 156(3) judiciously for oversight.
For public: Follow statutory sequence before courts.

Police authorities should focus on executing Magistrates' directions under Section 156(3) without seeking independent legal standing. MAHENDRA PAL SINGH VS STATE OF U P - 1997 0 Supreme(All) 371

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

Section 156(3) CrPC is a powerful tool for Magistrates to direct police investigations but does not confer legal representation on police authorities like Commissioners or Superintendents. They remain operational arms, not parties. Mithun Kushwaha VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 1271 MAHENDRA PAL SINGH VS STATE OF U P - 1997 0 Supreme(All) 371

Key Takeaways:- No precedent supports police representation under 156(3).- Complainants: SP first (154(3)), then Magistrate.- Police: Comply and report; no adversarial role.- Always exhaust remedies to avoid procedural pitfalls.

Understanding these nuances ensures efficient justice delivery. For personalized guidance, seek professional legal counsel.

References:- Mithun Kushwaha VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 1271- MAHENDRA PAL SINGH VS STATE OF U P - 1997 0 Supreme(All) 371 (https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500035124)- Shiv Dulari VS State of U. P. - 2014 0 Supreme(All) 3059- Manjula Daughter of Late Rati Kanta Sarma vs State of Assam Represented by The Commissioner and Secretary - 2025 Supreme(Gau) 609- SOHAIL MALIK Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 129- Vijay Sharma VS State of J&K - 2019 Supreme(J&K) 238

#CrPC1563, #PoliceInvestigation, #LegalRemedies

M.Marimurugan vs The Chairman and Managing Di - 2020 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 23671

(xi) Eschewing Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is only on exceptional and rarest of rare cases. ... If the person who received the complaint has not initiated any action, another option is also available to the petitioner to approach the higher police officers. Moreover, he is having the right to file a complaint before the jurisdictional Court, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 10. ... (ii) It is not an alternative remedy to Section #HL_STAR....

HT. KILACHING ANAL vs STATE OF MANIPUR AND 3 OTHERS

156 (3) CrPC. ... 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of ... , under Section 156(3) ... If such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, 156(3) CrPC.

Anirban Bhattacharya vs State of West Bengal - 2025 Supreme(Cal) 921

Learned Counsel further contended that despite the aforesaid facts, the Learned Trial Court capriciously and whimsically rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, even when the concerned police station and Deputy Commissioner of Police failed to register ... 156(3) of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner before him. ... This Court has deeply analysed the statutory provisions, particularly section#HL_END....

Bhavani vs The Commissioner of police - 2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 50253

The petitioner is at liberty to exhaust the remedy available to her under Section 154(3) and thereafter, if necessary, shall also to file a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 05.09.2022 Index: Yes/No Speaking / Non Speaking Order bkn R.N.MANJULA, J. ... After exhausting the remedy under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C., if the petitioner is still aggrieved, she can file a petition under Section 156(3). .....

RAMESH S/O GANESH SANGA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR

156(3) of Cr.P.C. ... The learned Magistrate having considered the contents of the complaint, referred the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation. ... It is also contended in the complaint that the representation was given to take action against the accused person for committal of the offence under Section 420 of IPC contending that the first installment of Rs.25 lakh ... This petition is filed unde....

Prabhu Nath Singh vs State Of West Bengal - 2025 Supreme(Cal) 942

156(3) of CRPC, there have to be applications under section 154(1) and 154(3) of the CRPC. ... under Section 156 (3) CRPC and the power of the police officer to investigate cognizable case that ordinarily this provision is invoked by the complainant when the police authorities decline to register the first information report. ... The warrant for giving a direction that an application Section 156 (....

Vijay Sharma VS State of J&K - 2019 Supreme(J&K) 238

If, despite approaching Superintendent of Police, the officer referred to in Section 36, his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. It emerges from above discussion that when someone has a grievance that his/her FIR has not been registered at Police Station and/or a proper investigation is not being done by the Police, first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C or other Police Officer referred to in Section 36 of Cr.P.C. It is evident from the guidelines laid down that to eschew t....

Babar Ali VS State of M. P. - 2019 Supreme(MP) 17

Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police made representation before the District Magistrate for taking action under section 3(2) of National Security Act against the petitioner. There is no improvement in the temperament and conduct of the petitioner despite warning by the authorities and the Courts. It is also submitted that the order passed by the District Magistrate has been affirmed by the State Government vide order dated 29.11.2018. It is further submitted that on perusal of the representation and the report of the Superintendent of Police, the District Magistrate pas....

KOGUNDI DYAMANNA VS MANIKANTA SARKAR - 2017 Supreme(Kar) 1032

The complaint is referred for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to Superintendent of Police, Lokayuktha, Davanagere. Await report by 29.3.2014 Sd/-2/12/2013 Judge, Special Court Davanagere

Ashok Kumar Ojha VS Jayhind Chaturvedi - 2016 Supreme(MP) 1165

Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code. Why then should writ petitions or section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under section 154(3), Criminal Procedure Code or other police officer referred to in section 36, Criminal Procedure Code. If despite approaching the Superintendent of police or the officer referred to in section 36 ....

Mala Devi VS State of M. P. - 2014 Supreme(MP) 744

It is contended that the representation given to the Superintendent of Police, Distt. 3. It is further alleged that on 7-10-2013, certain unknown persons have tried to assault and threaten the petitioner and it is also alleged that no one has yet been arrested in regard to the incident of threatening which took place on 7-10-2013 and the petitioner and her family is being threatened and are unable to exercise their right to life and liberty in a free and fair manner.