The Supreme Court docket on Wednesday (August 19) held that an FIR will be registered by the police even after the dismissal of an software to a Justice of the Peace in search of FIR registration below Part 156(3) of Cr.P.C. / Part 175(3) of BNSS.
“The rejection of an software below Part 156(3) of the Cr.PC can’t curtail or extinguish the impartial statutory obligation solid upon the Police below Part 154 of the Cr.PC.”, noticed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria.
The bench was listening to an enchantment filed in opposition to the Allahabad Excessive Court docket’s judgment refusal to quash the FIR in a dishonest case in opposition to the Appellant-accused. Earlier than the Excessive Court docket, the accused sought the quashing of an FIR on the procedural facets, arguing that when the complainant’s software below Part 156(3) of CrPC was rejected by the Justice of the Peace, then a subsequent registration of an FIR by the police was impermissible.
The Appellant argued that because the Justice of the Peace undertook an enquiry report from the police concerning the veracity of the complainant’s allegations, it amounted to consideration on deserves. Thus, a rejection of an software by the Justice of the Peace would bar the next FIR registration by the police.
Rejecting the Appellant’s argument, the judgment authored by Justice Mishra burdened that the Justice of the Peace’s order rejecting the complainant’s Part 156(3) software wouldn’t function as a bar for a subsequent registration of FIR by the police, as a result of it would not entail an adjudication on deserves to make the doctrine of res judicata apply to bar subsequent registration of FIR by the police.
“…an order handed below Part 156(3) of the Cr.PC is confined to directing, or declining to direct, the train of the statutory energy of investigation below Chapter XII of the Code. Such an order neither entails an adjudication on the deserves of the allegations nor determines any proper or legal responsibility of the proposed accused. Making use of the identical precept, the rejection of an software below Part 156(3) of the Cr.PC, being an order rendered on the threshold with none adjudication on the deserves after trial, can’t be accorded such finality as would entice the doctrine of res judicata in order to bar the next registration of an FIR or the continuation of prison proceedings based upon the identical or considerably comparable allegations.”, the Court docket noticed.
The Court docket held in approval with its 2015 order handed in Mahendri and Others v. State of U.P. and One other, the place “the Court docket unequivocally held that rejection of an software below Part 156(3) of the Cr.PC neither determines the deserves of the controversy nor displays upon the truthfulness of the allegations subsequently made within the FIR.”
Additional, the Court docket famous that Part 154(1) CrPC / Part 173(1) BNSS has its impartial existence, not dependent upon the result of Part 156(3) CrPC / Part 175(3) BNSS continuing, which might in any other case render the Lalita Kumari resolution to be redundant.
“Unbiased of whether or not an software below Part 156(3) of the Cr.PC has been allowed or rejected, the responsibility of the Police below Part 154 of the Cr.PC stays ruled by the statutory mandate of the Code. The duty to register and examine a cognizable offence doesn’t emanate from a path issued by the Justice of the Peace below Part 156(3) however flows instantly from Sections 154 and 156 of the Cr.PC. itself. This place stands authoritatively settled by the Structure Bench in Lalita Kumari whereby it was held that the place the knowledge furnished discloses the fee of a cognizable offence, registration of an FIR is obligatory. The police officer can’t keep away from that statutory responsibility and on the stage of registration, the enquiry is confined as to if the knowledge ex facie discloses a cognizable offence, the truthfulness, credibility or in any other case of the allegations being issues for investigation and never for refusing registration.”, the Court docket noticed.
For the reason that supplies taken on report prima facie disclose the fee of a cognizable offence, the Court docket refused to intervene with the Excessive Court docket’s resolution to uphold the continuation of the trial in opposition to the Appellant.
The enchantment was dismissed.
Trigger Title: PRAMOD KUMAR SHUKLA VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 829
Click here to download judgment
Look:
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Bibek Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Akshat Srivastava, AOR Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv. Mr. Arun Singh, Adv. Mr. Sudhakar Tiwari, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Shashank Pachauri, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv. Ms. Parul Shukla, AOR Ms. Shubhangi Pandey, Adv. Mr. Gladson Rodrigues, Adv.
