The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal, has reiterated that a Magistrate is not obligated to direct registration of an FIR in every case under Section 156(3) CrPC, and such powers must be exercised judiciously and sparingly.
The Court was dealing with a petition challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, which had directed registration of an FIR on a complaint alleging offences under Sections 376, 420, and 506 IPC. The Judicial Magistrate First Class had earlier declined the request for FIR registration and instead directed the complainant to lead preliminary evidence, treating it as a private complaint.
Setting aside the revisional court’s order, the Court held that the Magistrate had correctly exercised discretion after considering the police report and surrounding circumstances. It noted that the complaint was filed after a delay of approximately nine months without satisfactory explanation, and that an FIR for extortion had already been registered against the complainant in a connected transaction.
The Court emphasised that while the decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1 mandates registration of FIR in cases disclosing cognizable offences, exceptions exist where there is abnormal delay or other suspicious circumstances. It found that the revisional court had mechanically relied on the said judgment without appreciating these nuances.
The Court further held that the present case did not warrant police investigation, as the complainant was already in possession of relevant facts and evidence, and no complex or technical investigation was required. It also noted the unexplained delay of nine months in filing the complaint and the existence of an extortion FIR against the complainant as significant factors, bringing the case within the exceptions carved out in Lalita Kumari.
The Court further clarified that an order passed under Section 156(3) CrPC is not interlocutory in nature and is amenable to revision. However, it held that the revisional court had erred in interfering with a well-reasoned order of the Magistrate.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition, restored the Magistrate’s order treating the matter as a private complaint, and directed that proceedings continue in accordance with law.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Suvir Sidhu, Advocate; Mr. Gursher Singh Dhillon, Advocate and Mr. Naman Gumber, Advocate.
For Respondent No 2: Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana.
Mr. Ajay Singh Ghangas, Advocate
