Supreme Court Slams 'Second Bite' at CrPC Section 156(3): Parameters Differ from Private Complaints

In a crisp ruling on April 27, 2026, a bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh in the Supreme Court of India set aside orders from the Madras High Court and a Judicial Magistrate, holding that a magistrate cannot direct FIR registration under Section 156(3) CrPC for the second time after an initial dismissal. The appellants, Mohan Karthik and others , challenged what they called an impermissible procedural redo against the State of Tamil Nadu and the complainant.

A Procedural Maze Unravels

The saga began in 2022 when the complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC seeking police investigation and FIR registration. The Magistrate dismissed it, prompting a challenge before the Madras High Court. The High Court directed a preliminary police inquiry, leading to a closure report in December 2022.

Undeterred, the complainant approached the High Court again in 2023 against the closure. While dismissing the plea, the High Court explicitly granted liberty to file a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC. Instead, in May 2024, the complainant refiled under Section 156(3). The Magistrate obliged on August 23, 2024, directing FIR registration—a move the High Court upheld on October 7, 2025. This propelled the accused to the Supreme Court via SLP (Crl.) No. 18828/2025, now Criminal Appeal No. 2193/2026.

Accused Cry Foul, State Defends Flexibility

The appellants, represented by Mr. M.P. Parthiban, argued the second Section 156(3) plea was a backdoor attempt to review the Magistrate's 2022 dismissal and the High Court's orders. They stressed the High Court's liberty was confined to Section 200, not a repeat FIR directive, rendering the Magistrate's order jurisdictionally flawed.

The State, through Senior Additional Advocate General Amit Anand Tiwari and others, countered there was "no bar under law" to a second invocation, portraying it as a legitimate pursuit post-preliminary inquiry.

Court Cuts Through: Distinct Remedies, No Review Allowed

The Supreme Court rejected the State's stance, emphasizing the "quite different" parameters of Sections 156(3)—which empowers magistrates to order police investigation pre-complaint examination—and Section 200, which initiates private complaints for direct judicial scrutiny.

No precedents were directly cited, but the bench drew on foundational CrPC distinctions: Section 156(3) operates in a police-led investigative domain, while Section 200 shifts to magistrate examination of the complainant. Allowing a second 156(3) plea, the Court said, effectively let the Magistrate "review" the High Court's liberty grant, an oversight possibly by the complainant but impermissible nonetheless.

Key Observations from the Bench

"the second round of resorting to Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. is nothing but an attempt to review the earlier order passed by the High Court."

"the liberty given by the High Court to the respondent-complainant was only for the purpose of invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C."

"Suffice it to state that the parameters for the invocation of both the aforesaid sections are quite different."

Clean Sweep: Convert to Private Complaint

The Court granted leave and disposed of the appeal, quashing the High Court's October 7, 2025 order and the Magistrate's August 23, 2024 FIR directive. In a practical pivot:

"we set aside the impugned order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the High Court and the order of the learned Magistrate dated 23.08.2024 which directed the registration of an FIR, with a specific direction to the concerned Magistrate to treat the application filed by the respondent–complainant invoking Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. as a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C and, thereafter, proceed in accordance with law."

This ensures the complainant gets a hearing under Section 200 without bypassing procedural gates. For future cases, it signals magistrates must respect dismissals under Section 156(3) and honor High Court limits, curbing endless FIR chases while preserving private complaint avenues. A balanced procedural guardrail from India's top court.