Approaching Police Under 154 is a Must Before FIR Under Section 156(3) CrPC

Introduction:

The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that a Magistrate cannot order the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) unless the complainant has first approached the police under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC. This ruling reinforces the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention and prevents the misuse of legal procedures.

Legal Process Under Section 156(3) CrPC: Ensuring Compliance Before FIR Registration

Legal Background

Section 154 CrPC: Mandatory Police Complaint Before Seeking Judicial Intervention

• Section 154(1) CrPC: Any person aware of a cognizable offence must report it to the nearest police station. The police are required to register the complaint in writing, read it back to the informant, and obtain their signature.

• Section 154(3) CrPC: If the police refuse to register the FIR, the complainant must submit a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police (SP), who may either investigate the matter personally or direct a subordinate officer to take action.

Section 156(3) CrPC: The Magistrate’s Power to Direct FIR Registration

Only after exhausting remedies under Section 154 CrPC can a complainant approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC. The Supreme Court emphasized that complainants must provide documentary evidence to prove compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC before seeking an order for FIR registration.

Interpretation of CrPC and IPC Sections in Light of the Judgment

This case involves an interpretation of multiple sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Supreme Court has clarified the application of Sections 154(1), 154(3), and 156(3) of CrPC along with Sections 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) and 120B (Criminal Conspiracy) of IPC. The ruling ensures strict adherence to procedural law and prevents judicial overreach without statutory compliance.

Facts of the Case

The case examined whether a Magistrate could direct the registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC without the complainant first attempting to file a complaint under Section 154 CrPC.

The complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, alleging offences under Sections 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) and 120B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). On June 14, 2017, the Judicial Magistrate directed the registration of an FIR. The accused challenged this order before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which dismissed their petition and upheld the Magistrate’s decision.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s ruling, the accused appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Magistrate’s order was legally unsustainable as it violated the principles laid down in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015) 6 SCC 287.

Observations of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that a Magistrate cannot order FIR registration under Section 156(3) CrPC unless the complainant has first exhausted the remedies under Section 154 CrPC. The Court made the following key observations:

• A complainant must first report the offence to the police under Section 154(1) CrPC.

• If the police refuse to register an FIR, the complainant must file a written complaint with the Superintendent of Police (SP) under Section 154(3) CrPC.

• Before invoking Section 156(3) CrPC, the complainant must provide documentary proof of compliance with Section 154 CrPC.

• The Magistrate must ensure that the complainant has exhausted these remedies before passing an order for FIR registration.

The Court held that both the Magistrate and the High Court erred by ignoring the precedent set in Priyanka Srivastava. It criticized the mechanical issuance of an FIR order without verifying compliance with Section 154 CrPC.

Reference to Previous Judgments

The Supreme Court also cited Babu Venkatesh & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., where it was held that:

• Magistrates must verify whether complainants have exhausted remedies under Section 154 CrPC before invoking Section 156(3) CrPC.

• A mechanical order directing FIR registration without compliance with Section 154 CrPC is legally flawed.

The Court found that the complainant had failed to submit proof of compliance with Section 154 CrPC, making the Magistrate’s order legally unsustainable.

Comparison with Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which replaces the CrPC, has introduced reforms in the procedure of registering FIRs and approaching the judiciary. Under BNSS:

• Section 173 BNSS (corresponding to Section 154 CrPC) mandates that any information about a cognizable offence must first be reported to the police. The requirement to approach the Superintendent of Police (SP) if the FIR is not registered remains the same.

• Section 190 BNSS (corresponding to Section 156(3) CrPC) states that a Magistrate may direct FIR registration only if the complainant has exhausted their remedies under Section 173 BNSS.

• The requirement for affidavit submission, as highlighted in Priyanka Srivastava, continues under BNSS, ensuring that false complaints are discouraged and procedural integrity is maintained.

These provisions ensure continuity with the CrPC while making criminal investigations clearer and more accountable.

Held

In light of these observations, the Supreme Court:

• Quashed the Magistrate’s order directing FIR registration.

• Set aside the High Court’s ruling, which upheld the Magistrate’s order.

• Reiterated that Magistrates must ensure strict compliance with the Priyanka Srivastava case before directing FIR registration under Section 156(3) CrPC.

This judgment highlights the importance of following proper legal steps and prevents misuse of the legal process.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling highlights the importance of following proper legal steps before seeking a Magistrate’s order for FIR registration. It ensures that complainants first approach the police and higher authorities under Section 154 CrPC before turning to the judiciary under Section 156(3) CrPC. This judgment prevents the misuse of the legal system and ensures that cases are handled fairly and systematically. It also upholds past rulings, reinforcing that legal procedures must be followed strictly to maintain the integrity of criminal investigations.

Case title: Ranjit Singh Bath & Anr. v. Union Territory Chandigarh & Anr

Case No. : Criminal Appeal No. 4313 of 2024

Empower Your Legal Practice with AI

Are you a legal professional? Stay ahead with our innovative Lawttornet.AI tool. Streamline your legal processes, enhance productivity, and gain a competitive edge. Experience the future of legal technology—try our free Webinar session today!