Approached DGP First Instead of Local SHO: Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes FIR For Not Following Mandatory Procedure U/S 154 CrPC
The Court held that a complainant cannot directly invoke a Magistrate’s powers under S. 156(3) CrPC without first approaching the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station and exhausting the statutory remedies under S. 154 CrPC.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed an FIR and the Magistrate’s order directing its registration, holding that the complainant failed to comply with the mandatory procedure under Section 154 CrPC before invoking the Magistrate’s jurisdiction under Section 156(3) CrPC.
The High Court noted that the complainant had specifically pleaded that he approached the Director General of Police because he apprehended influence being exercised by the accused, who allegedly belonged to the ruling party.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla while referring to Ranjit Singh Bath v. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2025 SCC OnLine 1479, observed, “…It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Section 154(1) requires that the information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence has to be furnished to an officer in charge of the Police Station. When the complaint was not made to the officer in charge of the Police Station but to some other officer, there is no compliance with Section 154(1), and it is not permissible for him to approach the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC”.
“This judgment is binding upon this Court; therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate and the FIR registered based on the order passed by the learned Magistrate are liable to be quashed on this short ground alone”, the Bench said.
Senior Advocate Sudhir Thakur and Ashima Mandla appeared for the petitioners and Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General appeared for the respondent.
The dispute arose from an application filed by Sanjeev Kumar Sharma under Section 156(3) CrPC alleging that the accused persons had failed to execute sale deeds in respect of certain land despite receiving substantial consideration under an agreement to sell executed in 2004.
It was claimed that he had paid over ₹1.49 crore, obtained possession of the land, developed portions of it, and repeatedly requested execution of sale deeds for the remaining land.
He further alleged that in February 2024, one of the accused entered the disputed property with several persons and threatened him and his labourers. After approaching the Director General of Police and other authorities without obtaining registration of an FIR, Sharma moved the Magistrate seeking directions for criminal action.
The Magistrate found that the allegations disclosed offences relating to criminal trespass, criminal intimidation, assault, and related offences and directed registration of an FIR.
The accused argued that the entire dispute arose from an agreement to sell and was essentially civil in nature. More importantly, they contended that Sharma had not first approached the Station House Officer of the concerned police station as mandated under Section 154 CrPC before filing the application under Section 156(3).
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ranjit Singh Bath v. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2025 SCC OnLine 1479, they submitted that approaching senior police officers directly does not amount to compliance with Section 154(1) CrPC.
However, the Court held that this did not satisfy the statutory requirement, as referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ranjit Singh Bath, the Court observed that information regarding a cognizable offence must first be furnished to the officer in charge of the concerned police station. Only if such officer refuses or neglects to act can the complainant invoke the remedy under Section 154(3) and thereafter approach the Magistrate.
Justice Kainthla observed that since the complainant had not exhausted the remedies available under Section 154 CrPC, the Magistrate’s order directing registration of the FIR could not be sustained.
While quashing the FIR and the Magistrate’s order, the Court clarified that the complainant would be at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies after complying with the statutory requirements under Section 154 CrPC. Since the matter was being decided on this technical ground, the Court found it unnecessary to examine the other contentions regarding the civil nature of the dispute or the merits of the allegations.
Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar Sharma v. State of HP & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:21234)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate, Karun Negi, Ashima Mandla, Parul Negi, Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocates.
Respondents: Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.