Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Section 156(3) CrPC cannot be rejected or dismissed arbitrarily by the ACJM — Courts have clarified that the magistrate's power under Section 156(3) is discretionary and wide-ranging, allowing investigation even if prima facie evidence is weak or no FIR has been registered. The magistrate can treat an application under this section as a complaint or reject it based on judicial discretion, but cannot dismiss it without proper grounds ["Amit Kumar Sharma VS State Of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand"], ["UDAY KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY ALIAS CHATTERJEE VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Calcutta"].
Conversion of Section 156(3) applications into complaints — Several cases demonstrate that courts sometimes treat applications under Section 156(3) as complaints, especially when the magistrate finds no cognizable offence or deems investigation unnecessary. However, such conversions are subject to proper procedures and judicial discretion ["Ruchi Mittal @ Smt Ruchi Garg VS State of U. P. - Crimes"], ["ARUN GARG Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS - Punjab and Haryana"].
Magistrates' authority to order police investigation and their limitations — Magistrates have the authority to direct police to investigate under Section 156(3), but they are not obliged to do so if the application lacks proper procedural compliance, such as absence of affidavits or prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3). Orders must be based on proper application of law and facts ["Anupama Katkar VS State of West Bengal - Calcutta"], ["GOPAL PODDAR vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR - Calcutta"].
Rejection or dismissal of applications without proper grounds is unlawful — Courts have held that dismissing or rejecting applications under Section 156(3) without adequate reasons or on incorrect procedural grounds (e.g., no FIR registration, no proper application) is illegal. Such decisions can be challenged or set aside ["Ruchi Mittal @ Smt Ruchi Garg VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["SANJAY KUMAR GAUR & ANR. Vs STATE GNCT OF DELHI & ORS. - Delhi"].
Judicial review and revisional powers — Orders passed under Section 156(3) are amenable to revisional jurisdiction, and courts have the authority to quash proceedings if procedural irregularities or improper exercise of discretion are found ["SANJAY KUMAR GAUR & ANR. Vs STATE GNCT OF DELHI & ORS. - Delhi"], ["CHANCHAL PAL vs STATE OF U.P. and ANOTHER - Allahabad"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The main insight is that Section 156(3) of the CrPC grants magistrates wide discretion to direct police investigation, but this power must be exercised lawfully and with proper procedural adherence. The courts consistently emphasize that applications cannot be dismissed or rejected arbitrarily; instead, they require proper grounds, procedural compliance (such as affidavits and prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3)), and reasons for rejection. Orders to not entertain or dismiss applications under Section 156(3) without following due process are invalid and subject to judicial review. Therefore, a Section 156(3) application cannot be outrightly rejected by the ACJM without proper legal procedure and reasons, reinforcing the principle that the magistrate's discretion must be exercised judiciously and lawfully ["Ruchi Mittal @ Smt Ruchi Garg VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["ARUN GARG Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS - Punjab and Haryana"].
In the realm of criminal law in India, complainants often seek swift police action for cognizable offences. A common query arises: 156(3) can not be reject by the ACJM—meaning, can an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) outright reject a prayer under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)? The short answer is no, not arbitrarily. Such rejections must follow strict legal standards, including the application of judicial mind and reasoned orders. This blog post delves into the nuances, drawing from judicial precedents and legal principles to help you understand your rights.
Note: This is general information based on case laws and is not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Section 156(3) CrPC empowers a Magistrate to order the police to investigate a cognizable offence and submit a report. This provision is invoked at the pre-cognizance stage, allowing Magistrates—like the ACJM—to direct police investigation before formally taking cognizance under Section 190 CrPC. Priyanka Srivastava VS State of U. P. - 2015 3 Supreme 152
The power is discretionary but must be exercised judiciously. Courts have repeatedly stressed that Magistrates cannot act mechanically. As held, Powers under Section 156(3) can be invoked at a pre-cognizance stage, but the Magistrate must exercise this power in accordance with law. Priyanka Srivastava VS State of U. P. - 2015 3 Supreme 152
Rejection is possible, but not without proper application of mind. The Magistrate must:- Examine the complaint's allegations.- Determine if a cognizable offence is prima facie made out.- Record reasons if rejecting the prayer.
Rejection of a prayer under Section 156(3) without proper consideration or applying mind is legally impermissible. Priyanka Srivastava VS State of U. P. - 2015 3 Supreme 152 Mere narration of facts without analysis won't suffice. An outright rejection lacking reasoning constitutes an abuse of statutory power. Priyanka Srivastava VS State of U. P. - 2015 3 Supreme 152
In one case, the court quashed an FIR filed after a Magistrate rejected a Section 156(3) application, noting suppression of prior rejection and no cognizable offence disclosed. The Magistrate's reasoned dismissal—no cognizable offence being made out—was upheld, emphasizing judicious exercise. Maheshbhai Kalyanjibhai Vasant VS State Of Gujarat - 2024 Supreme(Guj) 491
Indian courts, including the Supreme Court and High Courts, have set clear guidelines:
These precedents align with landmark cases like Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. (2008), referenced in rulings stressing police accountability under Section 156(3). Lal Bhushan Singh, Son of Saryug Singh VS State of Bihar - 2018 Supreme(Pat) 169
While arbitrary rejection is impermissible, Magistrates may dismiss if:- Allegations are frivolous or meritless.- No cognizable offence is disclosed.- Even then, reasons must be recorded. Priyanka Srivastava VS State of U. P. - 2015 3 Supreme 152
For instance:- A complaint was rightly rejected before recording statements, as the Magistrate must first assess prima facie offence. Jaipur Ex-Servicemen Welfare Coop. Society VS State - 2012 Supreme(Raj) 195- In a family dispute, post-rejection FIR was quashed for abuse of process, as the Magistrate had assigned valid reasons. Maheshbhai Kalyanjibhai Vasant VS State Of Gujarat - 2024 Supreme(Guj) 491
Relatedly, under Section 94 CrPC for search warrants, rejection cannot hinge on minor procedural lapses like not joining a party (e.g., wife). The ACJM's order allowing search was upheld despite such objections. RANU CHOWDHURY NEE GUHA THAKURTA VS SATYAJIT GUHA THAKURTA - 2007 Supreme(Cal) 70
If a complaint reveals cognizable elements, the Magistrate typically directs investigation under Section 156(3). Post-investigation:- Accept charge sheet or take cognizance.- Reject 'B' Report with reasons and proceed under Chapter XV (Sections 200-202). CELINE SUMAN SEQUEIRA D/O MR. ANTONY LOBO & CARMIN LOBO VS STATE BY PUTTUR TOWN POLICE, THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 2019 Supreme(Kar) 1714
Failure to follow this led to quashing in one case where external materials were considered improperly. MANOJ KUMAR SINGH VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2007 Supreme(All) 2212
For complainants:- File detailed complaints with evidence of cognizable offence.- If rejected without reasons, seek revision under Section 397 CrPC or high court intervention under Section 482.
For Magistrates:- Always demonstrate judicial discretion in orders.- Provide detailed reasoning for rejections.
Magistrates should ensure that any rejection of a prayer under Section 156(3) is accompanied by detailed reasoning, demonstrating application of judicial discretion. Priyanka Srivastava VS State of U. P. - 2015 3 Supreme 152
Section 156(3) CrPC cannot be validly rejected by the ACJM without proper application of judicial discretion, reasoning, and adherence to legal standards. Any such order risks being set aside by higher courts. Priyanka Srivastava VS State of U. P. - 2015 3 Supreme 152
Key Takeaways:- Apply Mind: Mandatory for grants or rejections.- Reasoned Orders: No mechanical dismissals.- Judicial Review: Available for aggrieved parties.- Cognizable Offences: Prima facie case tips the scale toward investigation.
Understanding these principles empowers complainants and ensures procedural fairness. Stay informed, but always seek professional legal counsel for your specific situation.
References: Primary analysis from Priyanka Srivastava VS State of U. P. - 2015 3 Supreme 152, supplemented by Maheshbhai Kalyanjibhai Vasant VS State Of Gujarat - 2024 Supreme(Guj) 491, Lal Bhushan Singh, Son of Saryug Singh VS State of Bihar - 2018 Supreme(Pat) 169, CELINE SUMAN SEQUEIRA D/O MR. ANTONY LOBO & CARMIN LOBO VS STATE BY PUTTUR TOWN POLICE, THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 2019 Supreme(Kar) 1714, Jaipur Ex-Servicemen Welfare Coop. Society VS State - 2012 Supreme(Raj) 195, RANU CHOWDHURY NEE GUHA THAKURTA VS SATYAJIT GUHA THAKURTA - 2007 Supreme(Cal) 70, MANOJ KUMAR SINGH VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2007 Supreme(All) 2212, MRS CELINE SUMAN SEQUEIRA Vs THE STATE BY PUTTUR TOWN POLICE.
#CrPC1563, #CriminalLaw, #LegalRights
Being helpless, the ACJM-I converted the application under Section 156(3) CrPC into a complaint which would not meet the ends of justice and in the attending circumstances the applicant being a lady would not be able to prosecute the complaint. ... Amit Mittal and others), under Section 156(3) CrPC treating the application under Section 156(3) CrPC to be a complaint case. ... the case was transferred to the Court of ACJM#H....
(3) of Cr.P.C. passed by the ACJM, Ludhiana in CRM/133/2021 dated 12.01.2021. ... Admittedly, a complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C was filed which was dismissed but the said complaint was ordered to be treated as a complaint case. ... The petitioner in person contends that he had filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate against respondent Nos.5 to 7 and 13 along with unidentified police officials. ... 3. The learned counsel for....
... Secondly, the wife having not been joined to the party in the proceeding cannot be a ground to reject the prayer for issuance of search warrant. In view of specific provision in Section 94 of the Cr. P. ... ... ( 3 ) LEARNED ACJM, Alipore on 8. 12. 2004 upon examination of the two witnesses issued processes under Section 403/406 of the I. P. C. , and in respect of the petition under Section 94 of the Cr. P. ... In the context of the petitinoer's allegation that her own brother, the opposite party No. 1 removed all o....
and contentions of the petitioner to take such pleas which are available to him in connection with the case, but the learned ACJM was not rightly exercising his power which has been conferred upon him under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. ... This order of the learned ACJM, Patna according to learned counsel leads nowhere and the whole view of the learned ACJM that because no FIR has been registered therefore the police is free to take any action in accordance with law is not ....
of the Allahabad High Court and the reference was answered in the manner that it is not incumbent upon a Magistrate to allow an application under section 156(3) CrPC and there is no such legal mandate. ... On this application under Section 156(3) CrPC, the court below sought report from the police. ... He may or may not allow the application in his discretion and the Magistrate has discretion to treat an application under section 156(3) CrPC as a com....
It is not pertinent to note that learned Magistrate has not passed any order to pass any order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. In the case of Mona Panwar vs. ... Even, the learned ACJM by assigning reasons come to conclusion that no cognizable offence being made out. Hence, the learned ACJM has been pleased to pass an order to dismiss the complaint filed under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. ... 9.5 Further, once the learned ACJM has....
the opinion that the investigation has not been done properly, the court has no jurisdiction to direct the Police to file the charge sheet however, the Court may direct the Police for re or further investigation and submit a report, which power is inherent under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., but before ... 3. ... Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Puttur. 2. ... The learned Magistrate referred the said complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Upon investiga....
section 156(3) Cr.P.C. ... The order passed by the ACJM dated 5.1.2012 does not call for any interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ... section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation or to record the statement of the complainant to find out whether any offence is made out or not on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant before him. ... The application dated 4.1.2012 filed by the complainant for sending the complaint under section 156(#HL_START....
Being helpless, the ACJM-I converted the application under Section 156(3) CrPC into a complaint which would not meet the ends of justice and in the attending circumstances the applicant being a lady would not be able to prosecute the complaint. ... Amit Mittal and others), under Section 156(3) CrPC treating the application under Section 156(3) CrPC to be a complaint case. ... the case was transferred to the Court of ACJM#H....
The learned Magistrate referred the said complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. ... 3. ... Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Puttur. 2. ... (3) of Cr.P.C., but before taking cognizance such exercise has to be done. ... Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Puttur, D.K., in CC.No.457/2015 are hereby quashed. All contentions urged by the petitioner are kept open.
Magistrate allowed the prayer and directed police to investigate. After some days the OP No. 2 lodged this criminal proceeding against the petitioner by virtue of an application u/s-156(3) Cr.P.C. before the ACJM, Ghatal.
6. After completion of examination-in-chief of PW-2 i.e. the father of the deceased, he preferred an application under Section 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code, thereby praying for commitment of the case to the learned Sessions Court in view of the materials on record existing before the learned Trial Court on that date. The learned ACJM Bidhannagar (Trial Court) by an order dated 28.06.2017 was pleased to reject the said application.
After re-considering the matter the Judicial Magistrate directed registration and investigation. On hearing the outcries, the witness Sahab Singh came forward to save the opposite party but he was also subjected to assault. The application under Section 156 (3) was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate. The Opposite Party preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge which was allowed and the matter was remanded for decision afresh.
( 6 ) I have duly considered the submission of the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the learned ACJM, asansol in connection with M. P. Case No. 308 of 2006 arising out of C-774 of 2006 which reveal that by order dated 19. 10. 06 the learned ACJM directed the o. C. , Hirapur P. S. for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C. treating the complaint as FIR. It is also clear from the order sheet that this petitioner filed the written complaint before the learned Magistrate for investigation under section 156 (3) of the Cr. P....
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
