2006 (1) TMI 594 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether there is no particular format of a complaint? Whether a petition addressed to the magistrate containing an allegation that an offence has been committed and ending with a prayer that the culprits be suitably dealt with as in the instant case is a complaint?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Magistrate's power to order the registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Interpretation and scope of Section 156(3) vis-`a-vis Section 202 of the Code.
3. Validity of the High Court's order quashing the charge sheet and FIR.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Magistrate's Power to Order Registration of FIR under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

The Supreme Court examined whether the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) had the authority to direct the police to register and investigate a case under Section 156(3) of the Code. The appellant argued that the High Court's decision to quash the charge sheet was contrary to law and based on a misinterpretation of Section 156(3). The Court clarified that any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 of the Code could order an investigation under Section 156(3). The investigation initiated under this section should culminate in a report as indicated in Section 173 of the Code. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate's order for investigation under Section 156(3) does not equate to taking cognizance of the offence, which is a separate judicial act.

2. Interpretation and Scope of Section 156(3) vis-`a-vis Section 202 of the Code:

The Court elaborated on the distinction between investigations under Section 156(3) and Section 202. Section 156(3) falls within Chapter XII, which deals with police powers to investigate cognizable offences without a Magistrate's order. Conversely, Section 202, under Chapter XV, involves a limited investigation directed by a Magistrate after taking cognizance of an offence to decide whether there is sufficient ground to proceed. The Court highlighted that the Magistrate's direction under Section 156(3) is preliminary and does not require the Magistrate to examine the complainant on oath, as it is not an act of taking cognizance. The purpose is to enable the police to start their investigation, which should be recorded in an FIR as per Section 154 of the Code.

3. Validity of the High Court's Order Quashing the Charge Sheet and FIR:

The Supreme Court found the High Court's order quashing the charge sheet and FIR unsustainable. The High Court had quashed the proceedings on the ground that the Magistrate had no power to order the registration of the case. The Supreme Court refuted this by stating that the Magistrate's action under Section 156(3) was within legal bounds. The Court cited precedents, including Suresh Chand Jain v. State of M.P. and Another, and Gopal Das Sindhi and Ors. v. State of Assam and Anr., to support its interpretation that a Magistrate could order an investigation without taking cognizance of the offence. The Court also dismissed the respondent's argument that the appellant's petition was not a complaint in the strict sense, clarifying that the nomenclature of a petition is inconsequential if it contains allegations of an offence and a prayer for action.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's order, reinstating the charge sheet and FIR. The appeal was allowed, affirming the legality of the Magistrate's power under Section 156(3) to direct the registration and investigation of a case without taking cognizance of the offence. The judgment clarified the procedural nuances between Sections 156(3) and 202, ensuring that the Magistrate's preliminary directions do not overstep legal boundaries.