The Delhi High Court has held that a Magistrate is not empowered under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure to direct a Superior Officer to conduct investigation and to register an FIR.

The Court was considering Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.

The single-bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed, "In the foregoing extract, it is observed that as per the statutory mandate under Section 156(3) of the Code, the Magistrate is only empowered to direct the in-charge officer of the police station to conduct investigation and not any officer of a superior rank. It is further observed even if the superior officer proceeds with the investigation, it can be done only if the same is taken suo moto, or a direction is passed by a superior officer to do so or by the Government. In either of the situations, the power is not entrusted on the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code to direct a superior officer to conduct investigation and to register an FIR."

The Petitioners were represented by Advocate Seema Gupta while the Respondents were represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Raghuinder Verma.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner had applied for an overdraft limit with Syndicate Bank and handed over the requisite documents to a bank agent/mediator. However, due to alleged fraud committed by the said mediator, the petitioner filed an FIR against the bank officials and the mediator. Thereafter, proceedings against the Petitioner before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi were initiated by the Syndicate Bank. It was further claimed by the petitioner that he was in possession of the subject property when the bank officials took symbolic possession of the 100 square yards of the subject property. On the eventful day, Respondents entered the 3rd floor of the subject property and allegedly started damaging the premises.

Accordingly, the Petitioner informed the Police about the same and the concerned Police Officials reached the premises. It was claimed by the accused individuals that the subject property is owned by them. It was alleged by the Petitioner that despite the accused individuals destroying various article on the subject property premises in the presence of the police, no action was taken by them against the accused individuals and no sufficient help was provided to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, a complaint was filed against the accused individuals and the concerned police officials and an application under Section 156(3) of the Code was moved by the petitioner before the Metropolitan Magistrate-1 seeking appropriate directions to the concerned police officials for prosecuting the involved persons in the instant matter. An order came to be passed whereby the DCP (East) to register an FIR in the instant matter and to handover the investigation to the DIU. Aggrieved by the said order, the Government of NCT Delhi, the concerned police officials, and the accused individuals filed revision petitions. Accordingly, the impugned order setting aside the MM's order came to pass on the ground that there is absence of any special evidence for registration of the FIR as the same can be unearthed only during an investigation, however, the MM passed an erroneous direction to the concerned DCP to get the FIR registered as the same is against the mandate of Section 156(3) of the Code.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the instant petitions seeking setting aside of the impugned order.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the MM was well within its power to not only direct for investigation or registration of FIR but also to monitor investigation. Moreover, it is submitted that while registering an FIR, the investigating agency need not go into the veracity of the information and that it is trite law that when a cognizable offence is involved, the FIR needs to be registered

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset observed that it is a settled position of law that as per Section 156(3) of the Code, the Magistrate has the power to order an “officer of the police station” to conduct requisite investigation, however, the ambit of the said expression i.e., “officer of the police station” has often been misunderstood while exercising the powers under the said provision.

Noting that the Supreme Court has passed catena of judgments on the issue, the Court cited CBI v. State of Rajasthan, (2001) wherein the ambit of Section 156(3) of the Code as well as the said expression has been elaborately discussed

The Court drew inference from the same to conclude that the power is not entrusted on the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code to direct a superior officer to conduct investigation and to register an FIR.

"Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned ASJ was right in observing that the learned MM was not its power under Section 156(3) of the Code to issue directions to the concerned DCP, who is a senior official, to register an FIR and handover the investigation to the DIU," the Court observed.

The Petitions were accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Harmeet Singh vs. State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi (2025:DHC:779)

Appearances:

Petitioners- Advocate Seema Gupta, Advocate Roushan Choudhary, Advocate Dikyanshu Sharma

Respondents- Additional Public Prosecutor Raghuinder Verma

Click here to read/ download Judgement


Delhi High CourtJustice Chandra Dhari Singh

Sheetal Joon