When an application is filed seeking police investigation under S.156(3), Magistrate is duty-bound to apply judicial mind and ascertain whether allegations disclose commission of cognizable offence — Order directing investigation passed mechanically, without such satisfaction, is unsustainable — Magistrate cannot act as a post office.
[Paras 11–13, 21, 24–25, 27]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 323, 294, 500, 504, 506 — Ingredients — Whether made out on facts — Negative finding
Even if allegations in complaint taken at face value, essential ingredients of offences alleged not borne out — No case made out to put accused to trial — Continuation of investigation amounts to abuse of process of law.
[Paras 13, 16, 19–20, 27]
Penal Code, 1860 — S.294 — Obscene act — Meaning and scope
Obscene act under S.294 has specific meaning — Mere abusive, humiliating or defamatory words do not constitute obscenity — Alleged assault or humiliation in public view by itself does not amount to obscene act — Ingredients of S.294 not satisfied.
[Paras 14–16]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 504 & 506 — Intentional insult and criminal intimidation — Mere abuse or allegation insufficient
To attract Ss.504 and 506, there must be intentional insult provoking breach of peace or threat with intent to cause alarm — Mere allegation of abusive language without particulars insufficient — Ingredients not disclosed on plain reading of complaint.
[Paras 18–19]
Penal Code, 1860 — S.500 — Criminal defamation — Direction to investigate under S.156(3) — Impropriety
Magistrate directed investigation for offence of defamation without examining whether essential ingredients under S.499 IPC disclosed — Such direction wholly unjustified — High Court erred in affirming order.
[Para 20]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — S.156(3) — Discretionary remedy — Preconditions
Remedy under S.156(3) is discretionary — Magistrate must be satisfied that information reveals cognizable offence and that police investigation is necessary — Not mandatory to direct investigation in every complaint — Judicial approach mandated.
[Paras 10–11, 24–25]
Abuse of process — Police investigation
Continuation of investigation pursuant to mechanically passed S.156(3) order, where no offence is disclosed, amounts to abuse of process — Proceedings liable to be quashed.
[Paras 21, 27]
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — S.175 — Changes vis-à-vis S.156 CrPC — Safeguards
BNSS introduces additional safeguards before directing registration of FIR — Mandatory consideration of application to Superintendent of Police, inquiry by Magistrate, and submissions of police officer — Provisions codify judicial evolution of S.156(3).
[Paras 29–35]
ANALYSIS OF LAW AND FACTS
1. Core Issue
Whether the Magistrate was justified in directing registration of FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC and whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash such direction under Section 482 CrPC.
[Paras 1–2]
2. Nature of Proceedings
The complainant invoked Section 156(3) CrPC alleging offences under Sections 323, 294, 500, 504 and 506 IPC against a police officer. The Magistrate directed registration of FIR without preliminary scrutiny of ingredients.
[Paras 3–5]
3. Failure to Apply Judicial Mind
The Supreme Court found that the Magistrate mechanically accepted the complainant’s assertions and ordered investigation without determining whether allegations disclosed any cognizable offence. This was held contrary to settled law.
[Paras 11–13, 21]
4. Section 294 IPC — Misapplication
The Court clarified that obscenity requires lascivious or sexually impure elements. Allegations of humiliation or assault, even in public, do not amount to obscene acts. Hence, Section 294 IPC was wrongly invoked.
[Paras 14–16]
5. Sections 504 and 506 IPC — Absence of Ingredients
The complaint failed to disclose:
specific abusive words,
intention to provoke breach of peace, or
threat with intent to cause alarm.
Accordingly, offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC were not made out.
[Paras 18–19]
6. Criminal Defamation — Section 500 IPC
The Court expressed inability to comprehend how investigation for defamation could be directed when basic requirements of Section 499 IPC were not even adverted to by the Magistrate or the High Court.
[Para 20]
7. Abuse of Process
Given that:
incident was old,
no offence was disclosed,
investigation was stayed for years,
continuation of proceedings was held to be a clear abuse of process.
[Paras 26–27]
8. Legislative Development — BNSS, 2023
The Court undertook an authoritative exposition of Section 175 BNSS, holding that it incorporates judicial safeguards evolved under Section 156(3) CrPC to prevent misuse of criminal process.
[Paras 29–35]
9. Final Holding
Appeal allowed — Orders of Magistrate and High Court set aside — Direction under Section 156(3) CrPC quashed.
[Paras 36–37]
No comments:
Post a Comment