The Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 19) held that an FIR can be registered by the police even after the dismissal of an application to a magistrate seeking FIR registration under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. / Section 175(3) of BNSS.

“The rejection of an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC cannot curtail or extinguish the independent statutory obligation cast upon the Police under Section 154 of the Cr.PC.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria.

The bench was hearing an appeal filed against the Allahabad High Court's judgment refusal to quash the FIR in a cheating case against the Appellant-accused. Before the High Court, the accused sought the quashing of an FIR on the procedural aspects, arguing that when the complainant's application under Section 156(3) of CrPC was rejected by the magistrate, then a subsequent registration of an FIR by the police was impermissible.

The Appellant argued that since the magistrate undertook an enquiry report from the police about the veracity of the complainant's allegations, it amounted to consideration on merits. Thus, a rejection of an application by the magistrate would bar the subsequent FIR registration by the police.

Rejecting the Appellant's argument, the judgment authored by Justice Mishra stressed that the magistrate's order rejecting the complainant's Section 156(3) application would not operate as a bar for a subsequent registration of FIR by the police, because it doesn't entail an adjudication on merits to make the doctrine of res judicata apply to bar subsequent registration of FIR by the police.

“…an order passed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC is confined to directing, or declining to direct, the exercise of the statutory power of investigation under Chapter XII of the Code. Such an order neither entails an adjudication on the merits of the allegations nor determines any right or liability of the proposed accused. Applying the same principle, the rejection of an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC, being an order rendered at the threshold without any adjudication on the merits after trial, cannot be accorded such finality as would attract the doctrine of res judicata so as to bar the subsequent registration of an FIR or the continuation of criminal proceedings founded upon the same or substantially similar allegations.”, the Court observed.

The Court held in approval with its 2015 order passed in Mahendri and Others v. State of U.P. and Another, where “the Court unequivocally held that rejection of an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC neither determines the merits of the controversy nor reflects upon the truthfulness of the allegations subsequently made in the FIR.”

Further, the Court noted that Section 154(1) CrPC / Section 173(1) BNSS has its independent existence, not dependent upon the outcome of Section 156(3) CrPC / Section 175(3) BNSS proceeding, which would otherwise render the Lalita Kumari decision to be redundant.

“Independent of whether an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC has been allowed or rejected, the duty of the Police under Section 154 of the Cr.PC remains governed by the statutory mandate of the Code. The obligation to register and investigate a cognizable offence does not emanate from a direction issued by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) but flows directly from Sections 154 and 156 of the Cr.PC. itself. This position stands authoritatively settled by the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari wherein it was held that where the information furnished discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, registration of an FIR is mandatory. The police officer cannot avoid that statutory duty and at the stage of registration, the enquiry is confined to whether the information ex facie discloses a cognizable offence, the truthfulness, credibility or otherwise of the allegations being matters for investigation and not for refusing registration.”, the Court observed.

Since the materials taken on record prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court refused to interfere with the High Court's decision to uphold the continuation of the trial against the Appellant.

The appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: PRAMOD KUMAR SHUKLA VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 829

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Bibek Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Akshat Srivastava, AOR Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv. Mr. Arun Singh, Adv. Mr. Sudhakar Tiwari, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Shashank Pachauri, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv. Ms. Parul Shukla, AOR Ms. Shubhangi Pandey, Adv. Mr. Gladson Rodrigues, Adv.