Magistrate Cannot Switch Back To Pre-Cognizance Stage U/S 156 CrPC After Initiating Complaint Inquiry U/S 200 CrPC: J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has held that once the magistrate records the preliminary statement of the complainant and proceeds to direct an inquiry to ascertain the truth of the matter, it is not open to the magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR.

Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that once the magistrate opts for the complaint case procedure by taking the preliminary statement of the complainant on oath under Section 200 Cr.P.C., it cannot revert to the pre-cognizance stage by directing the registration of an FIR under Section 156 Cr.P.C. The court added that Section 156 Cr.P.C. relates to the pre-cognizance stage, whereas Section 200 Cr.P.C. pertains to the post-cognizance stage.

The court said that having undertaken the recourse to the complaint procedure, it was not open to the learned trial magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR after receiving the report of inquiry from the police. The court quashed the order passed by the trial court directing the registration of the FIR.

The court relied on Mohd. Aijaz vs. Sajad Ahmad Dar (2021) to reinforce that a magistrate cannot switch back to pre-cognizance procedures after initiating a complaint inquiry.

BACKGROUND

The petitioners challenged an FIR registered under Sections 461 and 31 IPC at Police Station Bakshi Nagar, Jammu, based on a complaint by the respondent. The complainant alleged that he was a tenant in a flat under a rent agreement with the petitioner. Upon returning from his native place, he found that unauthorized entry had occurred, and the main lock of his apartment had been changed.

The complainant reviewed CCTV footage and alleged that the petitioners had committed house trespass, theft, and burglary. An application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed before the Special Mobile Magistrate (Electricity), Jammu, leading to an order directing the police to register an FIR.

APPEARANCE:

Amarveer Singh Manhas, Advocate FOR PETITIONERS

Mr. Mohd. Irfan Inqlabi, GA Mr. Satinder Gupta, Advocate FOR RESPONDENTS

Case-Title: Renu Sharma and Anr. Vs Union Territory of J&K and another,

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 88

Click Here To Read/Download Order