Section 156(3) CrPC Vs. Section 175(3) BNSS: Supreme Court Clarifies Magistrates’ Role
Introduction:
The High Court of India made a significant judgment recently, about the necessity for the competent and the priority of the proper application of Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code under the given case (CrPC), to establish, that the latter should hence decree law upon the request of the police. The case of Om Prakash Ambadkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.[1] had to be reviewed by the Supreme Court, which eventually it decided to annul the magistrate’s order and not to register a First Information Report (FIR) against a police officer.
Table of Contents
Background of the Case:
The case arose when an advocate filed a complaint against a police officer, with the allegations of physical assault, and public humiliation. He suggested that the respondent had earlier approached the police station to file the FIR there but his efforts were in vain which left him with the option of assistance from the Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The court subsequently asked the police to register an FIR. However, the police officer challenged this order in the Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench and sought to quash it. The High Court turned down the request of the police officer, thereby, the magistrate’s decision was sustained. The officer dissatisfied with this outcome, appealed to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations:
The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat by way of a Division Bench ruling has examined the aspect of invocation of Section 156(3) CrPC by the magistrate. The Hon’ble Court has ruled that the police complaint is not just a mere forwarding system but it is a mechanism which should be completed by using independent judicial reasoning & power as a Judge. The Court maintained the view that it is only if justice will be better served or truly when it becomes absolutely necessary that such inquiry be conducted and not as an empty formality which an impression may be created that its due process is being followed.
The court dispelled that when a complaint is transparent, focused, and generally does not call for any expertise from the police for the purpose of the inquiry, the magistrate should move ahead with the trial by recording the evidence himself. This method makes sure that unnecessary intervention of police is not allowed in the cases where investigations by the court are adequate for the same. The judgment therefore aims at attaining the objective of decreasing the quantum of work that police departments have to handle and at the same time, it guarantees that the magistrate exercises their discretion in a wise manner.
The Supreme Court, after examining the advocate’s complaint, revealed that the charges mentioned did not fulfill the minimum legal requirement for initiating a police investigation. The complainant had registered a police officer as a perpetrator of offences under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 294 (obscene acts), 500 (defamation), 504 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter “IPC”). However, the Court opined that even if the allegations were proved correct, in themselves, they did not disclose the necessary elements of the said offenses. Accordingly, the direction to lodge an FIR with the police and conduct an investigation was arcane and not justified.
The Court also took note that the complainant, being a profession of an advocate, and the accused, being a profession of the police, were complicating the issue to the case. But this fact alone was not to justify a short cut to the judicial review process. The decision of the immediate magistrate for ordering an investigation without running an elaborate test on the necessity of the police involvement was a mistake.
Section 175(3) of BNSS:
In a related development, they had to go through the specifics of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) of 2023 that recently brought a new regulation. By replacing some of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC.), this act also makes it obligatory to check on the status of public servants. The bond between BNSS and CrPC. is in Section 175, where the former gives magistrates an appropriate level of control over police investigations, which is needed to stop their misuse.
BNSS Section 175 (3) is newly introduced for proper implementation. BNSS implies that every act is about law enforcement practice, that is, the procedures to be followed and priorities as the filing of the lawsuit for the police to investigate and others, and it gives police the name of offenders. The requirement that a complainant directly takes his case to the Superintendent of Police, in case the police station where he/she is supervised does not grant his/her FIR request is a coping measure, which means that he might have done something wrong and is asking to be investigated. This will also give complainants the right to file their FIR not only at the very beginning but also in other superior courts. The latter is however necessary because in some cases, without a GNB regime, the police are the main culprits. Further, the Investigation Order by magistrates can only be made when they hold an SI that is inadmissible subject to the lack of logical assertion in the complainant’s evidence.
These legal changes are intended to make the courts more effective while they are not using their powers to make it more difficult for the people who are suspected of a crime or who are involved in a civil claim. By enshrining in a law the rights of citizens, the BNSS seeks to find a perfect equilibrium between protecting the rights of individuals and eliminating the abuse of legal provisions.
Implications of the Judgment:
This landmark ruling of the Supreme Court will provide clearer guidelines to magistrates in dealing with applications under Section 156(3). The judgment has several key implications: Magistrates should make a careful choice on whether an investigation is necessary before ordering one. Basic cases that can be dealt by the court without police intervention should be directly eliminated through trial proceedings. The judgment discourages magistrates to hand out investigation orders as a mere formality and underscores the use of a reasoned approach.
Furthermore, it is the decision that brings to light the issue that the judiciary and police have different tasks. It makes sure that the police do not overload with cases that do not fall into the judiciary’s area of responsibility. The BNSS amendments are a signal to other Supreme Court decisions the likes of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., which had its judgment on the need of complainants to first approach the police and support their applications with affidavits reviewed and upheld to the letter.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Om Prakash Ambadkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. reinforces the importance of judicial discretion in directing police investigations. By emphasizing that magistrates should not act mechanically and must ensure that an investigation is truly necessary, the Court has reaffirmed a fundamental legal principle. The incorporation of additional safeguards under the BNSS further strengthens this approach, ensuring that investigations are warranted and necessary before they are initiated.
[1] Criminal Appeal No. 352/2020.
King Stubb & Kasiva,
Advocates & Attorneys
New Delhi | Mumbai | Bangalore | Chennai | Hyderabad | Mangalore | Pune | Kochi
Tel: +91 11 41032969 | Email: info@ksandk.com
By entering the email address you agree to our Privacy Policy.