Skip to main content

Revision application maintainable against order of Magistrate under Section 156(3) of CrPC

In NISHU WADHWA versus SIDDHARTH WADHWA, the questions before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was :-

i. Whether a person who has not been summoned as an accused can file a revision petition ?

ii. Whether revision petition filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was maintainable or not?

iii. Whether the Metropolitan Magistrate had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and pass order thereon as the investigation had been transferred?

iv. Whether directions by the Metropolitan Magistrate to add Sections in the FIR would amount to interference during investigation?

The Hon'ble court held that :-

i & ii) As decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Randhirsinh Dipsinh Parmar vs. State of Gujarat & Ors, the issue that since the accused has not been summoned as an accused and has no right to file a revision petition is alien, while deciding an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The said issue crops up when the Magistrate entertains the complaint and on taking cognizance proceeds as a complaint case. In case directions are issued for registration of FIR immediately, on registration of FIR, the person against whom allegations are made in the FIR attains the status of an accused. His rights in so far as the Police can summon him for investigation, arrest him without warrants for allegations of cognizable offences are duly affected. In a situation where the fundamental right of freedom and liberty of a person is affected, it cannot be held that he has no right to be heard at that stage. Thus to hold that since directions only have been issued under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and no cognizance has been taken thus no revision would lie would be an erroneous reading of the decisions of the Supreme Court.

iii) Section 154 Cr.P.C. does not qualify the territorial jurisdiction of the officer in-charge who receives the information to register the same, however, Sections 155 and 156 Cr.P.C. qualify the territorial jurisdiction of the officer in-charge to investigate offences within the limits of such station. Therefore, a Magistrate can direct the officer in-charge of a police station to investigate a cognizable offence which is within the jurisdiction of its local area. Thus a Magistrate is required to adhere to the territorial jurisdiction and in case it is not empowered to try the said offence, it has no jurisdiction to pass order under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.

iv) A bare reading of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. shows that the Magistrate is empowered to direct investigation into the allegation of cognizable offence which he has jurisdiction to enquire into or try if after taking recourse to Sections 154 and 154(3) Cr.P.C., no FIR is registered. If Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. empower the Magistrate to direct the police officer concern to register FIR and investigate the offences alleged, the same would mean all the offences mentioned in the complaint. The police officer who registers FIR and enter into investigation cannot decline to investigate some offences and leave other if on the allegations in the FIR, the same are found to be made out........Thus, when a Magistrate on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directs that all the offences mentioned in the complaint be investigated into, the Magistrate is not exercising its power illegally or beyond its jurisdiction.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more