Section156(3) CrPC vs. S.175(3) BNSS | BNSS Requires Magistrate to Hear Police Officer Before Rejecting FIR Registration, Ensuring a Reasoned Order: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently raised concerns over the frequent invocation of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to direct police investigations, even in straightforward cases where the court could proceed directly to trial. The Court emphasized that magistrates should exercise judicial discretion and not function as a mere conduit.

The Court clarified that a magistrate may instruct the police to investigate only when "the involvement of the Investigating Agency is essential and when the absence of a police investigation would compromise the administration of justice."

“The Magistrate should not routinely order an investigation by the police without first assessing whether, given the facts and circumstances, State intervention is truly warranted. If the complaint contains straightforward allegations that enable the Court to initiate trial proceedings directly, the Magistrate should record evidence and move forward rather than delegating the matter to the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. However, if the allegations necessitate a detailed and intricate investigation requiring the expertise and assistance of State authorities, the Magistrate may appropriately direct the police to conduct an investigation. Therefore, the Magistrate must not act as a mere intermediary but should adopt a judicial approach when deliberating on applications for police investigation.”, the Court remarked.

This observation was made by a bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan while adjudicating an appeal against a decision of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, which had refused to overturn a magistrate's order instructing the registration of an FIR against the Appellant/Police Officer under Sections 323, 294, 500, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC").

The complainant, a practicing advocate, alleged that the Appellant had physically assaulted and demeaned him. After the police station declined to register his FIR, he approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., requesting an order compelling the police to register the FIR. The Magistrate granted his request.

When the High Court declined to interfere with the magistrate’s decision, the Appellant escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.

Upon scrutinizing the allegations in the context of the statutory elements of the alleged offenses (Sections 294, 500, 504, and 506 of the IPC), the Supreme Court determined that, even if taken at face value, the accusations did not fulfill the necessary criteria for these offenses.

The Court held that the magistrate had erred in ordering FIR registration under Section 156(3) since the allegations, on their surface, did not warrant police intervention. Additionally, the Court observed that the allegations were not of such gravity that omitting a police investigation would hinder justice.

The Court also examined the amendments introduced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) under Section 175, which corresponds to Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. The newly added Section 174(4) of BNSS introduces further safeguards for public servants before an FIR can be registered against them. These safeguards include obtaining a report from a superior officer outlining the incident’s details and considering the public servant’s account of events leading to the alleged misconduct.

The Court identified three significant safeguards under BNSS Section 175(3), which were absent in Cr.P.C. 156(3): 1) a mandatory application to the Superintendent of Police (including a copy and affidavit); 2) the Magistrate's power to conduct an inquiry; and 3) mandatory consideration of the police's justification for declining to register an FIR. These provisions formalize existing protections against the potential abuse of magisterial authority.

A. Firstly, it is now mandatory for an applicant, upon facing refusal from the officer in charge of a police station to register an FIR, to submit an application to the Superintendent of Police. Any application made to the Magistrate under Section 175(3) must be accompanied by a copy of this application under Section 173(4) and supported by an affidavit.

B. Secondly, the Magistrate is empowered to conduct an inquiry, as deemed necessary, before issuing an order for FIR registration.

C. Thirdly, before directing an FIR to be registered under Section 175(3), the Magistrate is required to consider the submissions made by the officer in charge regarding the refusal to register the FIR.”

Additionally, the Court emphasized that BNSS enhances police accountability under Section 173 by mandating that the Magistrate consider the police officer’s submissions before issuing directives under Section 175(3). This requirement ensures that the Magistrate exercises judicial scrutiny when weighing both the complaint and the police’s justification, thereby reinforcing the necessity for issuing well-reasoned orders.

Given these considerations, the Court allowed the appeal and annulled the magistrate’s order directing the FIR registration against the Appellant-Police Officer.