Magistrate Empowered to Direct Investigation Under Section 156(3) When Statutory Requirements Fulfilled: J&K High Court Rejects Plea to Quash FIR
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar, Single Bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, held that a Magistrate is legally empowered under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct investigation prior to taking cognizance when the complaint meets the statutory requirements. The Court recorded that such direction is not governed by the procedural framework of Chapters XIV or XV of the Code. It was further held that where the complaint is supported by an affidavit and reflects prior police approach, the Magistrate's action under Section 156(3) is legally sustainable. The petition invoking inherent jurisdiction was accordingly dismissed.
The petitioners, the Editor-in-Chief and Correspondent of a media portal “Kashmir Crown,” approached the High Court seeking quashment of FIR No. 145/2021 registered at Police Station Dangiwacha under Sections 385, 506-II, 420, 120-B, 468 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge sheet pursuant to the FIR was already pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Dangiwacha.
The petitioners submitted that they had aired a story on the issue of drug abuse in Rafiabad on the request of one Parveena, who is the complainant in the case. According to them, the complainant had offered donations for the story, which was widely viewed. They claimed that, following resentment from the complainant’s family and other local groups, the complainant requested the removal of the broadcast, and upon refusal, lodged a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Dangiwacha. The Magistrate, according to the petitioners, bypassed the statutory requirements under Chapter XIV and XV of CrPC and directly forwarded the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) CrPC for registration of an FIR.
Challenging this process, the petitioners contended that the complaint was filed under Chapter XIV and should have been dealt with accordingly by the Magistrate by first recording the complainant’s statement and conducting an inquiry. They argued that the Magistrate, instead, erroneously exercised powers under Section 156(3) CrPC, resulting in abuse of process and denial of procedural safeguards to the petitioners.
It was further submitted that treating a private complaint as an application under Section 156(3) CrPC deprived the petitioners of the opportunity to prove their innocence through evidence and subjected them to custodial interrogation. The petitioners also alleged that the investigation carried out by the police was improper and influenced by media pressure.
The official respondents, in their reply, submitted that the FIR was registered upon directions of the Magistrate dated 09.08.2021. The investigation was conducted by recording witness statements, seizing bank transaction screenshots and certified statements, and retrieving mobile phone records forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate on 30.10.2021, concluding that the petitioners had committed the offences alleged.
Addressing the petitioners’ plea that the Magistrate could not have treated the complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC without compliance of Section 154 CrPC, the Court noted that the issue stood settled by the Supreme Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat (2019) 17 SCC 1. Citing the judgment, the Court quoted the Apex Court’s observation in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of UP (2008) 2 SCC 409, stating: “For the purpose of enabling the police to state investigation, it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR. There is nothing illegal in doing so.”
The Court further quoted the Supreme Court's pronouncement: “The power in the Magistrate to order further investigation under section 156(3) is an independent power and does not affect the power of the investigating officer to further investigate the case even after submission of his report vide section 173 (8).”
The High Court observed that a complaint supported with an affidavit and a statement that the complainant had earlier approached the police suffices to meet the mandatory requirements under Section 154 CrPC before invoking Section 156(3) CrPC. The Court relied on Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. vs. State of UP (2015) 6 SCC 287, observing that such procedural requirements were substantially complied with.
Justice Wani stated, “Perusal of the complaint would manifestly tend to show that the respondent 2 herein had specifically stated therein the application that before filing, she have had approached the concerned police in the matter and upon no action having been taken thereby Magistrate has been appointed.”
He added that the affidavit supporting the complaint revealed compliance with prerequisites, recording, “thus manifestly revealing that requirements contemplated under section 154 CrPC also have/had been fulfilled being sine qua non.”
The Court further held that since the investigation had been concluded, and a charge sheet had already been filed, the plea of the petitioners concerning non-compliance of Section 154 CrPC need not be examined at this stage. Justice Wani referenced Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2021 SC 1918 to support the proposition that courts should be cautious in invoking inherent powers once the charge sheet has been filed.
The High Court declined to quash the FIR or the consequential charge sheet and dismissed the petition. The final directive stated: “For the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shafqat Nazir, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Deputy Advocate General
Case Title: Mohammad Imran Ganai and Anr. vs. Government Through Police Station Dangiwacha
Case Number: CRM(M) 12/2022
Bench: Justice Javed Iqbal Wani
[Read/Download order]
