The Supreme Court has pointed out that unlike Section 156(3) of the CrPC, Section 175(3) of the BNSS requires a Magistrate to consider the submissions made by the police officer before ordering an investigation.

The Court set aside the Order passed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC directing the police authorities to register an FIR against the Appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 500, 504 and 506 of the IPC. The Bench stated that the Magistrate passed the Order mechanically without ascertaining whether the allegations levelled disclose the commission of any offence or not.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held “Further, by requiring the Magistrate to consider the submissions made by the concerned police officer before proceeding to issue directions under Section 175(3), BNSS has affixed greater accountability on the police officer responsible for registering FIRs under Section 173. Mandating the Magistrate to consider the submissions of the concerned police officer also ensures that the Magistrate applies his mind judicially while considering both the complaint and the submissions of the police officer thereby ensuring that the requirement of passing reasoned orders is complied with in a more effective and comprehensive manner.

Advocate Kishor Lambat represented the Appellant, while AOR Sachin Patil appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Appeal arose from a Criminal Application filed before the Bombay High Court challenging the Order of the Judicial Magistrate. The original complainant had alleged that he was humiliated by the police and when he attempted to file a complaint, the police refused to register an FIR.

When no action was taken, he moved an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC before the Magistrate. The Magistrate directed the Police to register an FIR and conduct an investigation.

Challenging this, the Appellant approached the High Court, which dismissed his Application, affirming the Magistrate’s decision.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court discussed the changes brought to the scheme of Section 156 of the CrPC by the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Section 175 of the BNSS corresponds to Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. Sub-section (1) of Section 175 of the BNSS is in pari materia with sub-section 156(1) of the Cr.P.C. except for the proviso which empowers the Superintendent of Police to direct the Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate a case if the nature or gravity of the case so requires,” the Court remarked.

A comparison of Section 175(3) of the BNSS with Section 156(3) of the CrPC indicates three prominent changes that have been introduced by the enactment of BNSS as follows:

  • “First, the requirement of making an application to the Superintendent of Police upon refusal by the officer in charge of a police station to lodge the FIR has been made mandatory, and the applicant making an application under Section 175(3) is required to furnish a copy of the application made to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), supported by an affidavit, while making the application to the Magistrate under Section 175(3).
  • Secondly, the Magistrate has been empowered to conduct such enquiry as he deems necessary before making an order directing registration of FIR.
  • Thirdly, the Magistrate is required to consider the submissions of the officer in charge of the police station as regards the refusal to register an FIR before issuing any directions under Section 175(3).”

The Court referred to the decision in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015) wherein the Supreme Court held that applications made under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. must necessarily be supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant.

It was further observed that “the requirement of supporting the complaint with an affidavit would ensure that the person making the application is conscious and also to see that no false affidavit is made. Once an affidavit is found to be false, the applicant would be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This would deter him from casually invoking the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3).”

Consequently, the Court held that “The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. The order passed by the Magistrate directing police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. is also set aside.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Om Prakash Ambadkar v. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 139)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocate Kishor Lambat

Respondents: AOR Sachin Patil; Advocates Rahul Chintis, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph and Shwetal Shepal

Click here to read/download the Order