Person Aggrieved With Refusal Of SHO To Register FIR Required To Move ‘Separate’ Application U/S 154(3) CrPC: Chhattisgarh HC

“…merely endorsing a copy of the application under Section 154(1) of the CrPC to the Superintendent of Police cannot be said to be the strict compliance of Section 154(3) of the CrPC, there has to be a separate and independent application under Section 154(3) of the CrPC after refusal by the SHO to register FIR,” the Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey remarked.

The bench also stressed that since the registration of an FIR involves serious and devastating consequences on the life and liberty of a person against whom the FIR is directed to be made, therefore, strict compliance with Section 154(3) of the CrPC is required to be made.

The Court passed this order while allowing a writ plea filed by 12 people in total (Principal and Teachers/Lab Assistant working with Delhi Public School, Risali Sector, Bhilai) against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) directing registration of FIR against them for offences punishable under Section 23(1) & (2) of the POCSO Act and Section 67 of the IT Act.

The case in brief

Essentially, the said FIR was registered on Court’s order on a plea moved by the teacher of the school (now suspended) after he was found guilty in the inquiry conducted by the School management of inflicting corporal punishment on the students and his matter was referred to the police.

The said teacher (respondent no. 3) was later on charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 354 & 354A of the IPC and Sections 11(1) & 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Meanwhile, he moved the police and then the Court under 156 (3) alleging that the petitioners subjected the victim/students to videography disclosing the identity of the victim(s) which is barred under Sections 23 (1) & (2) of POCSO Act and Section 67 of the IT Act. Pursuant to this, an FIR had been lodged on the court’s order.

Now, the petitioners moved the Court arguing that the impugned order had been made without ensuring compliance with the provisions contained in Section 154(1) & (3) of the CrPC.

Know the Law

Here it may be noted that Section 154(1) CrPC mandates that whenever information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally or in writing to an officer-in-charge of police station, such information, if given orally, shall be reduced into writing which shall be signed by the informer.

Further, whenever, there is a denial of duty by a police officer as mandated under Section 154(1) CrPC, the aggrieved or informant may approach the Superintendent of Police u/s 154(3) CrPC by sending to him, the information in writing and by post.

Now, after the receipt of such an application, the concerned SP, after being satisfied that the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any subordinate police officer, as per the legal procedure.

Court’s observations

At the outset, the Court referred to Supreme Court’s observations in the cases of Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2008) 2 SCC 409 and Priyanka Srivastava and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2015) 6 SCC 287 to note that the power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind and there has to be prior application under Section 154(1) and 154(3) of the CrPC.

In this regard, the Court also referred to the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Babu Venkatesh and others v. State of Karnataka and another 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 181 wherein it was stressed that prior to the filing of a petition under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, there have to be applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the CrPC.

The Court also noted that from the Judgments in the cases of Priyanka Srivastava (supra), Vikram Johar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2019 SC 2109 and Babu Venkatesh (supra), it was clearly held that applications under Section 154(1) & (3) are required to be made separately and both aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed.

Against this backdrop, reverting to the facts of the case, the High Court observed thus:

“…though the application under Section 154(1) has been filed, but no application under Section 154(3) is said to have been filed clearly stating that on refusal by the Station House Officer such application is being made. Refusal is sine qua non for making application maintainable under Section 154(3) of the CrPC. Respondent No.3 got the application under Section 154(1) of the CrPC endorsed to the Office of the Superintendent of Police two days after making application on 4- 12-2016 which cannot be said to be the sufficieint compliance of Section 154(3) of the CrPC.”

Consequently, the Court held that the order of the Additional Sessions Judge invoking power under Section 156(3) of the CrPC was total without jurisdiction and without the authority of law and hence, the order directing the FIR was quashed.

Case title - Parshant Vashishta and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others [Writ Petition (Cr.) No.177 of 2017]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Chh) 4

Click Here To Read/Download order