S.175 BNSS | Magistrate Can't Order Registration Of FIR Like 'Rubber Stamp' Especially In Complaints Arising From Family Disputes: Rajasthan HC

Rajasthan High Court quashed an FIR filed by the police on directions from the CJM based on a complaint under Section 175(3), BNSS, calling it a “rubber-stamp decision making” and observing complete judicial oversight on part of the CJM. It was opined that no judicial mind was applied for making an independent determination regarding prima facie existence of the case against the accused.

Section 175(3) of BNSS (corresponding to Section 156(3), CrPC) lays down power of a magistrate to order investigation by the police officer on receiving an information that reveals commission of a cognizable offence.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga ruled that in cases of family disputes, magistrates must aim at strengthening familial bonds and fostering harmony, and utmost caution must be exercised by both the law enforcement as well as the magistrates before directing registration of FIRs by meticulous ascertainment of truth and credibility of allegations.

“Magistrates must also meticulously ascertain the truthfulness and credibility of the allegations, corroborating them with supporting material before taking action Criminal Complaints in family disputes should not be entertained casually or without due scrutiny, as this may lead to undue harassment. Criminal courts must not serve as tools for personal vendettas or to gain unwarranted advantages.”

An FIR was registered against a son-in-law, daughter and a daughter-in-law (accused) based on a complaint sent by post to the Magistrate under Section 175(3) by an elderly woman (complainant) for the offence of cheating. It was the case of the complainant that the accused took a lot of money and jewellery from her on several occasions which they were refusing to return back when being asked to do so.

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the money and the jewellery were given by the complainant pursuant to an agreement for transfer of property which she breached by selling the property to some third party. Hence, she was claiming fraud on part of the petitioners to cover up her breach of contract and was using the criminal justice system to settle personal scores.

The Court, after perusing the records, opined that refusal to pay back money and jewellery did not constitute any criminal offence. It was held that none of the alleged offences were being made out against the petitioners and despite that the Magistrate ordered to register the FIR. The Court held that the order did not record any material or discussion based on which the Magistrate assessed the gravity of the alleged fraud or prima facie existence of the offence.

“The learned CJM simply directs the police to register an FIR based on the inquiry report without independently determining whether a prima facie case exists. Merely accepting the police's findings and criminalising a family dispute is a complete judicial oversight…A proactive approach by asking for supporting documentation would have ensured procedural fairness/any miscarriage of justice and judicial independence rather than point blank acceptance of police version.”

The Court further ruled Section 175 balanced an effective and fair investigation of cognizable offences and the need for judicial vigilance. Inherent checks and balances provided under Section 175, BNSS, was to ensure that no crime against society went unpunished. However, the power under the Section should not be misused to carry out investigations in frivolous complaints. Hence, the Magistrate may conduct his own inquiry to prevent misuse of police powers.

The Court made a reference to the Supreme Court case of Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. and highlighted that in many cases like this one, Supreme Court had cautioned the Judicial Magistrates in India to not act mechanically while directing the police to register FIRs, yet the action of the Magistrate in the present case was a complete disregard to this caution.

The Court highlighted that the issue was purely civil that was given the colour of criminality. Yet, the Magistrate passed the order for registration of an FIR in a cursory and mechanical manner, showing complete lack of application of judicial mind.

Furthermore, the Court held that in cases of family disputes it was imperative to prioritize efforts to mend the relationships rather than perpetuating hostility. It was held that amicable resolution of disputes was not only beneficial for the immediate parties but also saved future generations from adverse impact.

“Magistrates must also meticulously ascertain the truthfulness and credibility of the allegations, corroborating them with supporting material before taking action. Criminal Complaints in family disputes should not be entertained casually or without due scrutiny, as this may lead to undue harassment. Criminal courts must not serve as tools for personal vendettas or to gain unwarranted advantages.”

Finally, the Court observed that mostly affidavits were treated as mere formality but where the deponent had just affirmed the awareness of the content of the complaint, magistrates must personally verify the authenticity of allegations by verbal inquiries or other means.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the FIR was quashed.

Title: Gordhan Lal Soni & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 399

Click Here To Read/Download Order