We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit is so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR."{Para 31}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ABHAY S. OKA; J., UJJAL BHUYAN; J.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4313 OF 2024;
RANJIT SINGH BATH & ANR Vs UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH & ANR.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned senior
counsel appearing for the second respondent-complainant.
2. On the basis of a complaint filed by the second respondent invoking Section 156(3)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the CRPC"), an order was passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate on 14th June, 2017 directing the concerned Police Station
to register a First Information Report for the offences punishable under Section 420 and
120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "the IPC"). The order of the learned
Magistrate was challenged by filing a quashing petition before the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Court has dismissed the quashing petition by the
impugned order.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants relies upon a decision of this Court
in the case of Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.1 He invited out
attention to what is held in paragraph 27 of the said decision. He also relied upon a
decision of this Court in the case Babu Venkatesh & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr2
which follows the decision in the case of Priyanka Srivastava1.
4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent states that though
there is no specific averment regarding compliance with the requirements of sub-Sections
(1) and (3) of Section 154 of the CRPC, in substance, the compliance has been made. He
pointed out that in paragraph 14 of the complaint, it is stated that a written complaint was
addressed to the Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh which was marked to the
Economic Offences Wing of Chandigarh Police for inquiry under order dated 29th January,
2014. He accepts that there is no specific averment that a recourse was taken to Section
154(3) of the CRPC.
5. We have carefully perused the decision of this Court in the case of Priyanka
Srivastava1
. This Court has noted that there was misuse of the provisions of subSection
(3) of Section 156. In paragraphs 30 and 31, this Court held thus:
"30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) CrPC
applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the
1 (2015) 6 SCC 287
2 (2022) 5 SCC 639
2
invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned
Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the
allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so
as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility
whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming
when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can
be challenged under the framework of the said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined
to settle the scores.
31. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in
the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit is so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as
are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be
aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR."
(underlines supplied)
6. Section 154 of the CRPC reads thus:
"154. Information in cognizable cases.
(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an
officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and
be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to
writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be
entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe
in this behalf:
[Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under section
326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D,
section 376, section 376A, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376E or section
509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then
such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer: Provided
further that--
(a) in the event that the person against whom an offence under section 354, section 354A,
section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, 2[section 376A, section
376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB], section 376E
or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or
attempted, is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such information
shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence
or at a convenient place of such person’s choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special
educator, as the case may be;
(b) the recording of such information shall be video graphed;
(c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate
under clause (a) of sub-section (5A) of section 164 as soon as possible.] ;
3
(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free
of cost, to the informant. (3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge
of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance
of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if
satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either
investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate
to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an
officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence."
7. 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 In-charge of a Police
Station. 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. SubSection (3) of Section 154 comes into picture only when after a complaint is submitted to
the Officer In-charge of Police Station or information is provided to the Officer In-charge
of Police Station regarding commission of a cognizable offence, the Officer In-charge
refuses or neglects to register First Information Report.
8. Sub-Sections (1) and (3) of Section 154 of the CRPC are the two remedies available
for setting the criminal law in motion. Therefore, 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. However, in this
case, the second respondent did not exhaust the remedies. In this view of the matter, we
find that both the learned Magistrate and the High Court have completely ignored the
binding decision of this Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava1
.
9. We, therefore, quash and set aside both the impugned orders and quash and set
aside all the further steps taken on the basis of order dated 14th June, 2017 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate.
10. We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the allegations made by
the second respondent. The second respondent is free to take recourse to the remedies
under Section 154 of the CRPC in accordance with law.
11. Subject to what is observed above, the appeal is allowed.
No comments:
Post a Comment