"We Only Have Sympathies For Him": Decoding 156(3) CrPC Vs. Private Complaint Divide
The quiet surroundings of the Supreme Court of India were broken on July 10, 2026, by a high drama. A petitioner-in-person, Prabal Pratap, appeared before a bench that was presided over by Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe. Mr. Pratap started argument itself announcing himself as "the sovereign" and referred to the judges as "judicial servants", further declaring he is ordering the said judicial servants to order registration of an FIR. He started to use abusive language, threw around papers, and finally ruined his own case, making it necessary for security to escort him from the courtroom.
Although the Supreme Court Advocacy Counsel Association properly criticized the disruption and demanded strict measures to maintain the integrity of the institution, the calm judges opted to show sympathy. Justice Viswanathan astutely observed, "He is very disturbed... it's all frustration. We only have sympathies for him."
This article is not justification of highly contumacious behaviour of the petitioner, who got away only because he was before well meaning judges. But, beneath the courtroom theatrics lies a deeply consequential procedural grievance, one that highlights the massive chasm between state-backed criminal investigations and the challenging journey of a private complaint. However, while systemic frustrations do exist, Mr. Pratap's behavior leads us to the question of whether the system let him down or his actions gave us enough reason to question the truthfulness of his allegations.
The argument in Prabal Pratap's case arose out of an instruction of the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Customs), Lucknow. The petitioner had petended before the Magistrate an order to file a first information report against an Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP) who, according to him, was operating the cybercrime racket. Rather than direct the police to file the FIR, the Magistrate directed that the application be treated as a private complaint. After his writ petition challenging this order was rejected by the Allahabad High Court, which pointed out the availability of an alternative remedy, the matter came to be decided by the Supreme Court which found no reason to intervene and denied the Special Leave Petition.
To understand why this procedural shift drove a litigant to such an extreme outburst, one must look at the mechanical realities of the criminal justice system.
A person approaching a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which now corresponds to Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is seeking court intervention in compelling police to file an FIR and investigate a cognizable crime. In case the Magistrate concurs with the request, the State's machinery comes into play. The police then exercise their statutory powers of inspecting the crime scenes, executing search warrants, recovering electronic evidence, making arrests of the accused, and recording the statements of the witnesses. All the costs associated with investigation process are borne by the State which ends with a police report (either charge sheet or closure report) being filed in the court.
However, when a Magistrate declines the FIR route and instead takes cognizance under Chapter XV of the CrPC (now Chapter XVI of the BNSS), treating the application as a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC (Section 223 BNSS), the landscape changes dramatically.
The State takes a step back and the police are largely out of the picture, unless the Magistrate specifically directs that a limited police inquiry be conducted under Section 202 CrPC (Section 225 BNSS) to ascertain whether there are sufficient grounds to begin the process. Suddenly, the victim has to take on the role of investigator, prosecutor, and financier of the case. In a private complaint, there is no real threat of arrest for the accused person. The complainant has to produce his own witnesses, examine them on oath before the Magistrate, and arrange for all documentary evidence. It is only when the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence for a prima facie case that they will take action, which is the issuance of a summons or warrant under Section 204 CrPC (Section 227 BNSS) to bring the accused to a trial.This procedural pivot is often entirely inadequate for complex or specialized crimes, which explains the petitioner's severe distress.
In fairness to the judiciary, the magistrates normally choose the path of private complaints. The said power to order an FIR under Section 175(3) of the BNSS is not an automatic power. Courts know all too well how police machinery can be abused to trouble individuals in trivial and motivated cases, which could otherwise be merely civil. That is why looking at a doubtful application as a private complaint acts like a judicial sieve for ensuring that police arrest is not used without the requisite judges' scrutiny. However, in cases involving complicated technical evidence or big disparities in power between the complainant and defendant, a complainant cannot in any way replace an FIR.
The actions of Prabal Pratap in the Supreme Court of the country were completely unacceptable and seriously undermined the respect for the judiciary. There is no reason to believe that any offenses can justify insults directed at people in charge of the enforcement of the Constitution. Though the strenuous procedural requirements of private complaints pose hurdles to legitimate claimants in accessing justice, by interrupting the proceedings early and harming his own case before the judge, the petitioner regrettably destroyed the credibility of his underlying claims.
Views are personal.