Section 303(2) BNS | FIR Can Be Registered Only After Getting Appropriate Order From Magistrate: Madras High Court

Justice Anand Venkatesh thus quashed an FIR filed against the man. Though the court noted that the FIR itself was not sustainable in law and thus the anticipatory bail was also not maintainable, the court thought it fit to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC and interfere with the FIR.

“The FIR that has been registered against the petitioner is not sustainable in law. Technically speaking, this anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable, since the offence is bailable. However, this Court by exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is inclined to interfere with the FIR, since the very registration of FIR for a non-cognizable offence, without getting appropriate orders of learned Magistrate is illegal,” the court said.

Section 303 of the BNS talks about Theft. As per Sub Section (2) of the Section 303, whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both and in case of second or subsequent conviction of any person under this section, he shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 1 year but which may extend to 5 years and with fine. The proviso to the Section states that in case of theft where the value of stolen property is less than Rs. 5000 and a person convicted for the first time, shall, upon return of the value of property or restoration of stolen property, shall be punished with community service.

The court was hearing an anticipatory bail petition filed by Jebaraj, apprehending arrest for an alleged offence under Section 303(2) of BNS on the file of Tirunelveli Police Station. The alleged case against Jebaraj was that he had stolen tyres from the defacto complainants shop worth Rs. 3000.

The court noted that the value of the stolen property is Rs. 3000 and it would come within the scope of non-cognizable offence. Thus, as per Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the FIR could be registered only after getting appropriate order from the Magistrate. Thus, the court opined that the registration of the FIR, sans the order of the Magistrate was illegal.

The court was thus inclined to quash the FIR and allowed the petition.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan

Counsel for Respondents: Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 454

Case Title: Jebaraj @ Jeyaraj v The State of Tamil Nadu

Case No: CRL OP(MD). No.19623 of 2024