Introduction
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s SAS Infratech Pvt Ltd versus State of Telangana and Anr.1 provided clarity on the powers of the Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”). The Supreme Court reiterated the Court’s previous position and held that investigation ordered by a Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, 1973, cannot be equated to the Magistrate taking cognizance. The Court relying on a previous decision distinguished between the powers of a Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, 1973 and Section 202 of the CrPC, 1973. The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the High Court which had set aside the earlier decision of a Trial Court ordering investigation under 156(3) of the CrPC, 1973 on grounds of it being passed without any reasons or application of mind. The Hon’ble Supreme Court's ruling, reversing the High Court’s decision, reinstates the principle that the mere act of ordering an investigation does not amount to taking cognizance of the offence.
Facts of the Case
The Appellant who was the complainant, had filed an application seeking directions to be given to the Station House Officer (SHO) of the concerned Police Station to register a First Information Report against the Respondents, leading to a docket order by the Trial Court. The Trial Court upon scrutinizing the complaint, documents, and the submissions made by the Appellant’s counsel, found a prima facie case and referred the complaint to the Station House Officer (SHO) of the concerned Police Station under Section 156(3) CrPC, 1973, for investigation and report.
Respondent No. 2, the accused, challenged the order by filing a Criminal Writ Petition under Section 482 CrPC, 1973, before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana. The Hon’ble High Court set aside the Trial Court's order on the grounds that the docket order had been passed without any proper reasons, prompting the Appellant to appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Issues
Appellant’s Arguments
The Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Trial Court had correctly exercised its judicial discretion under Section 156(3) CrPC after a thorough examination of the complaint and supporting documents.
The Counsel for the Appellant relied on the precedent set in Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy And Others vs. V. Narayana Reddy And Others2 arguing that directing an investigation under Section 156(3) does not amount to taking cognizance of the offence.
Respondent No. 2’s Arguments:
The Counsel for Respondent No. 2 argued that the complaint filed was not supported by an affidavit, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Priyanka Srivastava And Another versus State of Uttar Pradesh And Others3, which emphasized the need for an affidavit to avoid frivolous complaints.
The Counsel for Respondent No. 2 justified the High Court's intervention under Section 482 CrPC, asserting that the Trial Court’s order lacked proper reasoning and thereby warranted the High Court's interference.
DECISION
The Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on the 1976 judgement of Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy And Others versus V. Narayana Reddy And Others and reiterated the position taken by the Supreme Court in the landmark judgement. The Court reiterated the following principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment to determine the nature of cognizance and Section 156 (3) thereof.
On the discretion of the Magistrate
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a Magistrate receives a complaint, he is not bound to take cognizance of the facts alleged in the complaint, even if they disclose the commission of an offense. The term "may take cognizance" indicates that the Magistrate has discretion and is not compelled to act upon the complaint. If the Magistrate determines that the allegations disclose a cognizable offense and that forwarding the complaint to the police under Section 156(3), 1973, would better serve justice and conserve judicial resources, he may choose this route instead of taking cognizance himself. This approach recognizes the primary duty of the police to investigate such matters.
On defining Cognizance
The Apex Court held that the term "taking cognizance of an offense" by a Magistrate, as mentioned in Section 190, is not explicitly defined in the CrPC, 1973. However, from the structure and language of the CrPC, 1973 it is clear that a case is considered instituted in a court only when the court takes cognizance of the alleged offense. This can occur in various ways as outlined in clauses (a), (b), and (c) of Section 190(1). Whether or not the Magistrate has taken cognizance depends on the specifics of each case, including the initiation mode and any preliminary actions taken by the Magistrate. Generally, when a Magistrate processes a complaint to proceed under Section 200 and subsequent sections of Chapter XV, he is deemed to have taken cognizance. If the Magistrate instead takes alternative actions such as issuing a search warrant or ordering a police investigation under Section 156(3), cognizance has not been taken.
On the distinction between Section 156(3) and Section 202 of the CrPC, 1973
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Sections 156(3) and 202, CrPC, 1973, confer different powers to the Magistrate at distinct stages of legal proceedings. Section 156(3) CrPC, 1973, located in Chapter XII titled "Information to the Police and their powers to investigate," pertains to the pre-cognizance stage. It allows a Magistrate to order a police investigation before taking cognizance of an offense under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC, 1973. Conversely, Section 202 CrPC, 1973, found in Chapter XV, applies post-cognizance when the Magistrate is already handling the case. This section empowers the Magistrate to direct an investigation to decide whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding further. Once a Magistrate takes cognizance and begins the procedures in Chapter XV, he cannot revert to the pre-cognizance stage and invoke Section 156(3) CrPC, 1973.
On the nature and purpose of police investigations
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an order under Section 156(3) CrPC, 1973, serves as a directive to the police to utilize their comprehensive investigative powers starting from evidence collection under Section 156 CrPC, 1973, and culminating in a report or charge-sheet under Section 173 CrPC, 1973. This process encompasses the entire investigative phase. In contrast, Section 202 CrPC, 1973, applies when the Magistrate has already gathered some evidence but deems it insufficient for deciding the next procedural steps. The investigation under Section 202 CrPC, 1973, aims to aid the Magistrate in concluding the existing proceedings, not to commence a new case based on a police report. This distinction emphasizes the procedural boundaries and intended purposes of the investigations under these sections.
On the decision of the Hon’ble High Court
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the Trial Court's order under Section 156(3) CrPC, 1973. The bench emphasized that the Trial Court had exercised its judicial discretion appropriately after perusing the complaint and the accompanying documents. The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court should have respected the limited scope of its powers under Section 482 CrPC, 1973, which are meant to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, not to substitute its own judgment for that of the Magistrate.
The Court dismissed the Respondent No. 2’s reliance on the Priyanka Srivastava decision, noting that the requirement of an affidavit was a measure to curb frivolous complaints and did not invalidate the Trial Court's order in the present case. The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s order, directing the police investigation.
Conclusion
The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment reaffirms the clear distinction between the judicial actions under Sections 156(3) and 200 of CrPC, 1973. By reinstating the Trial Court’s order for police investigation, the Court underscored the judicial prudence required in distinguishing between pre-cognizance and post-cognizance stages of criminal proceedings. This decision highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring that procedural nuances are respected, thereby maintaining the integrity of judicial processes.
By - Parshva Shah
Top