- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Delhi High Court
- /
- Magistrate Can't Direct Superior...
Magistrate Can't Direct Superior Officer Like DCP To Register FIR Under Section 156(3) Of CrPC: Delhi High Court
Nupur Thapliyal
11 Feb 2025 1:15 PM IST
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a magistrate has no power to direct a superior officer such as a DCP to register an FIR under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure.Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that as per the statutory mandate, the Magistrate is only empowered to direct the in-charge officer of the police station to conduct investigation and not any officer of a superior...
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a magistrate has no power to direct a superior officer such as a DCP to register an FIR under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that as per the statutory mandate, the Magistrate is only empowered to direct the in-charge officer of the police station to conduct investigation and not any officer of a superior rank.
“It is further observed even if the superior officer proceeds with the investigation, it can be done only if the same is taken suo moto, or a direction is passed by a superior officer to do so or by the Government. In either of the situations, the power is not entrusted on the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code to direct a superior officer to conduct investigation and to register an FIR,” the Court said.
Justice Singh made the observations while dismissing the petitions filed by a man- Harmeet Singh, against a sessions court order setting aside an order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate directing the DCP (East) to register an FIR in a complaint filed by him. Singh filed the complaint against the various individuals and police officials over the possession of his property by bank officials.
The sessions court had set aside the MM court order on the ground that there was absence of any special evidence for registration of the FIR as the same can be unearthed only during an investigation, however, the MM had passed an erroneous direction to the concerned DCP to get the FIR registered as the same was against the mandate of Section 156(3) of CrPC.
Rejecting the petitions, the Court said that apart from passing the order, the MM had two options- first, to dismiss the complaint or issue notice to the alleged accused and second, to postpone taking cognizance of the complaint and send the application under Section 156(3) of CrPC to the concerned police station for inquiry or investigation.
The Court further observed that the filing of criminal complaint by way of application under Section 156(3) of CrPC by Singh was nothing but an attempt to pressurize the concerned police officials to take requisite action.
“It is observed that the learned MM has alternate remedies to proceed with the instant matter, especially given the peculiar facts of the case. However, the learned MM erroneously proceeded to dispose of the application by directing the concerned DCP to register an FIR against the accused and handover the investigation to the DIU,” the Court said.
It added: “It is observed that the said direction cannot be passed as the same is contradictory to the mandate of Section 156(3) of the Code and therefore, the learned MM, instead, had the option of proceeding with the complaint under Section 200 of the Code.”
Title: HARMEET SINGH v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 165