In a crucial ruling, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that a Magistrate does not take cognizance of an offence when directing the police to investigate a case under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The case originated from a private complaint filed by M/S SAS Infratech Pvt. Ltd. against several accused before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate in Telangana. Upon reviewing the complaint and accompanying documents, the Magistrate invoked Section 156(3) CrPC, instructing the police to investigate the matter.
The accused challenged this order in the High Court of Telangana, which accepted their petition and overturned the Magistrate's directive. The High Court reasoned that the Magistrate's lack of stated reasons for the investigation order rendered it invalid. Dissatisfied with this decision, the complainant company appealed to the Supreme Court.
A Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, sided with the complainant and reinstated the Magistrate's order for police investigation.
Referring to the landmark 1976 judgment in Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy vs. V. Narayana Reddy, the Supreme Court clarified the difference between a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence under Section 190 CrPC and directing an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC.
The court highlighted an important observation from the Devarapalli case: "When a Magistrate, upon receiving a complaint, applies their mind for proceedings under Section 200 and subsequent sections in Chapter XV of the 1973 Code, they are considered to have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a). However, if the Magistrate, in their judicial discretion, opts for a different action—such as issuing a search warrant or ordering a police investigation under Section 156(3)—they have not taken cognizance of any offence."
Applying this principle, the Supreme Court determined that in the current case, the Magistrate had simply exercised judicial discretion by directing an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC after a preliminary assessment of the complaint. At this stage, the Magistrate had not taken cognizance of the offence.
The court criticized the High Court for overturning the Magistrate's order, stating: "The High Court should not have interfered with an order that was just, legal, and proper, especially while exercising limited powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C."
This judgment clarifies the critical legal issue distinguishing a Magistrate's power to direct an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC at the pre-cognizance stage from taking cognizance of an offence under Section 190 CrPC to commence further proceedings. The Supreme Court has made it clear that directing an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC does not constitute taking cognizance of the offence, a process that only begins when the Magistrate proceeds under Chapter XV of the CrPC by thoroughly considering the complaint and related materials.In a crucial ruling, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that a Magistrate does not take cognizance of an offence when directing the police to investigate a case under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The case originated from a private complaint filed by M/S SAS Infratech Pvt. Ltd. against several accused before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate in Telangana. Upon reviewing the complaint and accompanying documents, the Magistrate invoked Section 156(3) CrPC, instructing the police to investigate the matter.
The accused challenged this order in the High Court of Telangana, which accepted their petition and overturned the Magistrate's directive. The High Court reasoned that the Magistrate's lack of stated reasons for the investigation order rendered it invalid. Dissatisfied with this decision, the complainant company appealed to the Supreme Court.
A Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, sided with the complainant and reinstated the Magistrate's order for police investigation.
Referring to the landmark 1976 judgment in Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy vs. V. Narayana Reddy, the Supreme Court clarified the difference between a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence under Section 190 CrPC and directing an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC.
The court highlighted an important observation from the Devarapalli case: "When a Magistrate, upon receiving a complaint, applies their mind for proceedings under Section 200 and subsequent sections in Chapter XV of the 1973 Code, they are considered to have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a). However, if the Magistrate, in their judicial discretion, opts for a different action—such as issuing a search warrant or ordering a police investigation under Section 156(3)—they have not taken cognizance of any offence."
Applying this principle, the Supreme Court determined that in the current case, the Magistrate had simply exercised judicial discretion by directing an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC after a preliminary assessment of the complaint. At this stage, the Magistrate had not taken cognizance of the offence.
The court criticized the High Court for overturning the Magistrate's order, stating: "The High Court should not have interfered with an order that was just, legal, and proper, especially while exercising limited powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C."
This judgment clarifies the critical legal issue distinguishing a Magistrate's power to direct an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC at the pre-cognizance stage from taking cognizance of an offence under Section 190 CrPC to commence further proceedings. The Supreme Court has made it clear that directing an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC does not constitute taking cognizance of the offence, a process that only begins when the Magistrate proceeds under Chapter XV of the CrPC by thoroughly considering the complaint and related materials.
To get free legal advice:https://www.advotalks.com/
For More Legal Updates visit our youtube channel
.jpeg&w=80&h=80&crop-to-fit)
