Approaching DGP Instead Of Officer-In-Charge Of Police Station Does Not Satisfy Section 154 CrPC: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed an FIR and a Magistrate's order passed under Section 156(3) CrPC, holding that a complainant cannot directly approach the Magistrate without first complying with the mandatory requirement under Section 154(1) CrPC of furnishing information to the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla was hearing three connected petitions challenging the order dated 10.06.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. in an application filed under Section 156(3) CrPC.
The dispute arose out of land measuring 232-14 bighas situated at Mohal Ogli, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. According to the complainant/applicant Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, accused Nos. 1 and 2, along with their mother late Smt. Leela Kumari, were owners in possession of the land in question. It was alleged that accused No. 2, acting as General Power Attorney holder of Smt. Leela Kumari, executed an agreement to sell the land in favour of the complainant on 29.11.2004.
The complainant alleged that possession of the land was handed over pursuant to the agreement and that he paid a total consideration of Rs. 1,49,66,250/-. It was further alleged that although sale deeds for a portion of the land were executed, the accused failed to execute sale deeds for the remaining land despite repeated requests. According to the complainant, accused No. 2 later entered the land along with several persons in February 2024 and threatened the complainant and his labourers.
The complainant approached the Director General of Police, who forwarded the complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Sirmour for enquiry. Since no FIR was registered, an application under Section 156(3) CrPC was filed before the Magistrate.
The Trial Court held that mere pendency of a civil suit was no ground to refuse initiation of criminal proceedings and observed that the allegations disclosed commission of offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Accordingly, the application was forwarded to the SHO for registration of FIR and investigation. Challenging the order, the petitioners argued that after 01.07.2024, proceedings were governed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and therefore the Magistrate was required to comply with Section 175(3) BNSS before directing registration of FIR.
It was further argued that an application under Section 156(3) CrPC must be accompanied by proof that the complainant had first approached the concerned Station House Officer and that approaching other police officials would not amount to proper compliance. The petitioners also contended that the dispute was purely civil in nature arising out of an agreement to sell and that criminal proceedings had been initiated only to exert pressure.
Opposing the plea, the State submitted that investigation was still continuing and that if no cognizable offence was made out, a cancellation report would be filed.
Senior Advocate Mr. Sudhir Thakur appearing for the complainant/respondent No. 2 submitted that the allegations disclosed offences of cheating, forgery, criminal intimidation, intentional insult, criminal trespass and causing hurt, and therefore the FIR could not be quashed at the threshold.
After examining the record, the High Court noted that the complainant had specifically pleaded apprehension of influence by the accused, who allegedly belonged to the ruling party, and therefore had approached the Director General of Police instead of the local police station. The Court relied upon the Supreme Court's judgment in Ranjit Singh Bath, where it was held that Section 154(1) CrPC requires information regarding commission of a cognizable offence to be furnished to the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station. The Court observed:
“When the complaint was not made to the officer in charge of the Police Station but to some other officer there is no compliance with Section 154(1), and it is not permissible for him to approach the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC.”
Holding the Supreme Court judgment binding, the High Court observed that the FIR and the Magistrate's order were liable to be quashed on this short ground alone. The Court further clarified that since the FIR was being quashed on the technical ground of non-compliance with Section 154 CrPC, the complainant would still be at liberty to approach the Magistrate again after complying with the statutory requirements.
Accordingly, the Court allowed Cr.MMO Nos. 823 of 2025 and 1136 of 2025 and quashed the order dated 10.06.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan in Cr.MA No. 136 of 2025 as well as FIR No. 97 of 2025 dated 13.06.2025 registered at Police Station Kala Amb, District Sirmour, H.P. for offences under Sections 447, 323, 504 and 506 IPC.
Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh.
Case Number: Cr. MP(M) No. 273 of 2026
Appearance: Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate, in Cr.MP(M) No. 273 of 2026; Ms. Ashima Mandla, Advocate (through video conferencing) and Ms. Parul Negi, Advocate, in Cr.MMO No. 823 of 2025; and Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, in Cr.MMO No. 1136 of 2025. Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, appeared for the State. Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate, appeared for respondent No. 2 in Cr.MMO No. 823 of 2025 and respondent No. 4 in Cr.MMO No. 1136 of 2025.