156(3) CrPC- Information Should Be Furnished To Officer Incharge Of Police Station: Supreme Court Quashes Direction To Register FIR As Complaint Was First Addressed To IG
The Supreme Court clarified that Section 154 (3) would apply only when the Officer Incharge of a Police Station refuses or fails to register an FIR, after receiving a complaint or information about a cognizable offence.
The Supreme Court has held that before a complainant invokes the remedy under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), he must first exhaust the remedies available under Sections 154(1) and (3) of CrPC, with supporting documents for their averments. It further held that Section 154(3) applies when the Officer in Charge of a Police Station refuses or fails to register an FIR after receiving a complaint or information about a cognizable offence.
The first complaint in the case was addressed to the Inspector General of Police (IG), who forwarded the same to the Economic Offences Wing.
A Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “The requirement of sub-Section (1) of Section 154 is that information regarding commission of a cognizable offence has to be furnished to an officer Incharge of a Police Station. In this case, obviously, the said compliance was not made.”
The Court added, “..this Court held that before a complainant chooses to adopt a remedy under Section 156(3) of the CRPC, he must exhaust his remedies under sub-Sections (1) and (3) of Section 154 of the CRPC and he must make those averments in the complaint and produce the documents in support.”
The Appellant was represented by Advocate Surjit S. Swaitch, while Senior Advocate D. P. Singh represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
A complaint was filed by the Complainant before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of CrPC, who passed an order directing the concerned police station to register a First Information Report (FIR) for offences punishable under Section 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The order of the Judicial Magistrate was challenged before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The High Court dismissed the quashing petition by way of the impugned order.
It was averred by the Complainant that a written complaint was submitted to the Inspector General of Police, and was marked to the Economic Offences Wing of the Police for inquiry, however, he acknowledged that there was no specific averment indicating that recourse was taken to Section 154(3) of the CrPC.
Reasoning of the Court
The Bench referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of U.P. (2015), wherein it was held that prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of CrPC are necessary while filing a petition under Section 156(3), and both aspects should be spelt out in the application with necessary documents. It was further held that an affidavit must support the application under Section 156(3) to ensure that the applicant is conscious of the allegations made and to prevent false complaints.
The Court stated, “In this case, obviously, the said compliance was not made. It is stated that the Inspector General of Police forwarded a complaint to the Economic Offences Wing. Sub-Section (3) of Section 154 comes into picture only when after a complaint is submitted to the Officer Incharge of Police Station or information is provided to the Officer Incharge of Police Station regarding commission of a cognizable offence, the Officer Incharge refuses or neglects to register First Information Report.”
The Court observed that before seeking remedy under Section 156(3) CrPC, a complainant must first exhaust remedies under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) and provide supporting averments and documents in the complaint, however in the present case, the Complainant had not exhausted such remedies.
“In this view of the matter, we find that both the learned 7 Magistrate and the High Court have completely ignored the binding decision of this Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava”, the Bench added.
Consequently, the Bench allowed the appeal, quashed both impugned orders, and set aside any further steps taken based on them.
Cause Title: Ranjith Singh Bath & Anr. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No(s). 4313/2024)
Appearance:
Appellants: Subhasish Bhowmick, AOR; Advocates Surjit S.Swaitch, Deepa Negi, Pritpal Singh Swatch, Rajat Sharma
Respondents: Senior Advocate D.P Singh; Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR, Sonam Gupta, AOR; Advocates Kanu Agrawal, Varun Chugh, Bhuvan Kapoor, Manu Mishra, Garima Saxena, Iman Khera
