S. 156(3) CrPC| Magistrate's Order For FIR Not Vitiated Merely Because Complainant Didn't Avail Remedy Under S.154(3) : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (July 25) refused to quash the magistrate's order directing a police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., despite the complainant not availing alternative remedies under Section 154(3).

The Court said that a magistrate's order directing a police investigation can be irregular but cannot be termed illegal if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence and the magistrate applied his mind before ordering the investigation; therefore, the order cannot be faulted.

“To sum up, the Magistrate ought not to ordinarily entertain an application under Section 156(3) CrPC directly unless the informant has availed and exhausted his remedies provided under Section 154(3) CrPC, but as the Magistrate is otherwise competent under Section 156(3) CrPC to direct the registration of an FIR if the allegations in the application/complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, we are of the opinion that the order so passed by the Magistrate would not be without jurisdiction and would not stand vitiated on this count.”, the Court observed

The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti heard the case where the Appellants-accused being directors and senior officers of the company VLS Finance Ltd. was aggrieved by the Delhi High Court's decision dismissing their plea against the magistrate's order directing police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC despite the complainant not availing the alternative remedies under Section 154 (3).

The Appellants challenged the magistrate's order on the ground that the complainants had not availed the alternative remedies before approaching the magistrate.

Refusing to interfere with the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mithal emphasized that the person aggrieved must first exhaust the alternative remedies available to him in law before approaching the court of law, but this procedural irregularity should not override the power of the magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) when a cognizable case was made out and the investigation order was passed upon application of mind.

“In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the informant had directly moved the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC without exhausting his statutory remedies, the Magistrate could have avoided taking action on the said application and could have refused to direct for the registration of the FIR. However, as entertaining an application directly by the Magistrate is a mere procedural irregularity and since the Magistrate in a given circumstance is otherwise empowered to pass such an order, the action of the Magistrate may not be illegal or without jurisdiction”, the court observed.

“The Magistrate by the order dated 01.07.2005 has simply directed for the registration of the FIR so as to set the criminal law in motion but has not exercised his power under Section 190 of the CrPC of taking cognizance thereof. In such a situation, the order so passed by the Magistrate, though irregular, is of no prejudice to any party, much less to the VLS. Therefore, it is not appropriate for this court to 20 interfere in the matter or with the order of the Magistrate dated 01.07.2005 or with the order impugned passed by the High Court.”, the court added.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: ANURAG BHATNAGAR & ANR. VERSUS STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 742

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. (argued by) Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.S.Ray, Sr. Adv. Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashok Sharma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Chugh, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Gulia, Adv. Mr. Jai Allagh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jai Allagh, Adv. Ms. Rakhi Ray, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv.(argued by) Mr. Sidhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Adv. Mr. Jatin S Sethi, Adv. Mr. Akbar Siddique, AOR Mr. Rajneesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shahzar Qureshi, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Osama, Adv. Mr. Mohammad Farman Ashraf, Adv.

State Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. (argued by) Mr. Vinayak Sahrma, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma Ii, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR