The recent Supreme Court judgment in Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri and others has explained the differences between the powers of a Magistrate under Section 156(3) and Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). The Court highlighted that Section 156(3) of the CrPC empowers the Magistrate to direct the registration of an FIR and investigation at a pre-cognizance stage, whereas Chapter XV of CrPC lays down the procedure to be followed by the Magistrate when a complaint case is filed.
Before getting into the judgment let us quickly go through the legal history of the sections.
Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is a provision that empowers a Magistrate to order an investigation into a cognizable offense if the police refuse to register a First Information Report (FIR) or take any action upon receiving information about the commission of a cognizable offense.
The provision was introduced in the CrPC by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1973, which came into force on April 1, 1974. Before the amendment, a person who wanted to lodge a complaint about a cognizable offense had to approach the police station concerned and file an FIR. If the police refused to register the FIR, the complainant had no option but to approach the Magistrate with a private complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC. This process was often cumbersome and time-consuming, and the police sometimes refused to register FIRs in cases where they had political or other interests. This led to a situation where many victims of crime were unable to get justice.
To address this issue, the provision of Section 156(3) was inserted in the CrPC. The provision allows a person to approach the Magistrate when the police are delaying the investigation or registering the FIR. The Magistrate can then order an investigation into the offense under Section 156(3).
Time and then the Court also made its observation and emphasized the importance of Section 156(3) of CrPC.
In Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh, the higher constitutional court provided guidelines for the registration of FIRs and the use of Section 156(3). The court held that in cases where the information provided to the police discloses the commission of a cognizable offense, the police are bound to register an FIR and investigate the case. If they refuse to do so, the aggrieved person can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3).
In Sakiri Vasu vs State of Uttar Pradesh the Apex Court held that an aggrieved person can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) even if the police have registered an FIR but have failed to investigate the case properly. The court also held that the Magistrate has the power to monitor the investigation and give necessary directions to the police.
In Tapan Kumar Singh vs State of West Bengal (2003) the Supreme Court held that a Magistrate can order an investigation under Section 156(3) even if the aggrieved person has already filed a private complaint under Section 190 of the CrPC. The court held that the provision of Section 156(3) is an additional remedy available to the aggrieved person.
Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is a significant provision that empowers a magistrate to direct a police investigation into a complaint filed before them. The section requires the magistrate to scrutinize the complaint and its supporting documents before issuing such directions.
Initially, the section was interpreted to mean that the magistrate must record reasons for directing the police investigation. However, in the case of Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi (1985), the Supreme Court held that recording reasons were not mandatory. The court observed that if a magistrate was satisfied with the material before them, they could order an investigation even without recording reasons.
Later, the question arose as to whether the magistrate must examine the complainant before issuing directions under Section 202. In the case of Ramesh Kumari v. State of Maharashtra (1987), the Supreme Court held that the magistrate need not necessarily examine the complainant before ordering an investigation. The court observed that the magistrate must consider the entire material before them, including the complaint and its supporting documents.
In 2005, the Supreme Court, in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, reiterated the importance of Section 202 and held that the magistrate must satisfy themselves that there are sufficient grounds for directing an investigation. The court observed that the magistrate must scrutinize the complaint and its supporting documents carefully and record reasons for their decision. The court also held that the police must register an FIR if the complaint discloses a cognizable offense and the magistrate has directed an investigation.
The brief fact of the recent Supreme Court judgment Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri and others is that the case involves a complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the CJM. Prior complaints were made to the police authorities, but no FIR was registered due to a delay in filing. The original complainant filed an application before the CJM, which dismissed it after verifying the facts and veracity of the allegations. The High Court quashed the CJM's order, directing to reconsider the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The High Court held that the CJM should only consider whether the allegations disclose a cognizable offense, based on the Lalita Kumari case.
After recording the arguments on both sides the Apex Court observed that the power under Section 156(3) of CrPC is to be exercised "before he takes cognizance under Section 190". Once the Magistrate takes cognizance, the Magistrate has the discretion to take recourse to his powers under Section 202 of CrPC. The Court further highlighted that Section 202 of CrPC provides for postponement of the issue of process, and the Magistrate may inquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a Police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there are sufficient grounds for proceedings.
Under Section 203 of CrPC, the Magistrate, after considering the statement of the complainant and witnesses on oath and the result of an inquiry under Section 202, can dismiss the complaint if he is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding and in every such case briefly record his reasons. The proviso to Section 202 of CrPC states that no direction for investigation shall be made where a complaint has not been made by a Court unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) are examined on oath under Section 200 of CrPC.
The Court clarified that the Magistrate has the power, when a written complaint is made, to issue a direction under Section 156(3) of CrPC, but this power is to be exercised before the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offense under Section 190. However, in both cases, whether under Section 156(3) or under Section 202 of the Code, the accused person, when the proceedings are pending before the Magistrate, remains unrepresented.
The Court also highlighted that to check malevolence and false assertions, every application under Section 156(3) should be supported by an affidavit, as directed in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh. The Court also observed that vigilance is especially required in cases pertaining to the fiscal sphere, matrimonial/family disputes, commercial offenses, medical negligence cases, corruption cases, or cases where there is an abnormal delay.
The Supreme Court has provided an insightful explanation of the distinction between the power of a Magistrate to direct registration of an FIR and investigation at a pre-cognizance stage under Section 156(3) of CrPC, and the proceedings under Chapter XV (Complaints to Magistrate) after the taking of cognizance. Therefore, the judgment is a significant contribution towards enhancing the efficiency of the criminal justice system in India.
Comments