S.156(3) CrPC v S.175(3) BNSS | BNSS Mandates Magistrate To Hear Police Officer On Refusal To Register FIR, Ensures Reasoned Order : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently criticized the routine use of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order police investigations, even in simple cases where the court could proceed directly to trial, stressing that magistrates should act judicially, not mechanically as a mere post office. The Court clarified that the magistrate can direct the police investigation only “where the assistance of the Investigating Agency is necessary and the Court feels that the cause of justice is likely to suffer in the absence of investigation by the police.” “The Magistrate is not expected to mechanically direct investigation by the police without first examining whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, investigation by the State machinery is actually required or not. If the allegations made in the complaint are simple, where the Court can straightaway proceed to conduct the trial, the Magistrate is expected to record evidence and proceed further in the matter, instead of passing the buck to the Police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Of course, if the allegations made in the complaint require complex and complicated investigation which cannot be undertaken without active assistance and expertise of the State machinery, it would only be appropriate for the Magistrate to direct investigation by the police authorities. The Magistrate is, therefore, not supposed to act merely as a Post Office and needs to adopt a judicial approach while considering an application seeking investigation by the Police.”, the court observed. The aforesaid observation came by a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan while hearing an appeal filed against the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench decision refusing to set aside the magistrate's order directing the registration of FIR against the Appellant/Police official herein for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 500, 504 & 506 respectively of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). The Complainant-Advocate alleged that the Appellant had assaulted and humiliated him. He attempted to file an FIR at the police station, but they refused to register it. He then approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., seeking an order directing the police to register the FIR. The Magistrate granted the order. Following the High Court's decision refusing to interfere with the magistrate's order prompted the Appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court. Setting aside the High Court's decision, the Court upon meticulously examining the allegations made by the complainant in light of the ingredients of the alleged offenses (Sections 294, 500, 504, and 506 of the IPC) concluded that the allegations, even if true, did not satisfy the necessary ingredients for any of these offenses. The Court ruled that the magistrate wrongly ordered the FIR registration under Section 156(3), as the allegations, even at first glance, did not constitute an offense requiring police investigation. Furthermore, the Court noted that the allegations were not so serious that the absence of a police investigation would hinder justice.How BNSS introduced changes in the provision?The Court also highlighted the changes introduced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in Section 175 (corresponding to Section 156 of the Cr.P.C.), noting that Section 174(4) of BNSS is a new addition providing additional safeguards for public servants before an FIR can be registered against them. These safeguards include requiring a report from their superior officer detailing the facts and circumstances of the incident and considering the accused public servant's account of the situation that led to the alleged incident. The Court highlighted three new safeguards in BNSS Section 175(3) (absent in Cr.P.C. 156(3)): 1) mandatory application to the Superintendent of Police (with copy and affidavit); 2) Magistrate's power of inquiry; and 3) consideration of the police's refusal to register the FIR. These codify existing safeguards against misuse of magisterial powers.“a. First, the requirement of making an application to the Superintendent of Police upon refusal by the officer in charge of a police station to lodge the FIR has been made mandatory, and the applicant making an application under Section 175(3) is required to furnish a copy of the application made to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), supported by an affidavit, while making the application to the Magistrate under Section 175(3). b. Secondly, the Magistrate has been empowered to conduct such enquiry as he deems necessary before making an order directing registration of FIR. c. Thirdly, the Magistrate is required to consider the submissions of the officer in charge of the police station as regards the refusal to register an FIR before issuing any directions under Section 175(3).” “Further, by requiring the Magistrate to consider the submissions made by the concerned police officer before proceeding to issue directions...

S.156(3) CrPC v S.175(3) BNSS | BNSS Mandates Magistrate To Hear Police Officer On Refusal To Register FIR, Ensures Reasoned Order : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

The Court noted that Section 175(3) ensured that the Magistrate passes a more reasoned order with judicial application of mind.

Tags