Magistrate Doesn't Take Cognizance Of Offence While Directing Police Investigation As Per S.156(3) CrPC : Supreme Court

Recently, the Supreme Court reiterated that a Judicial Magistrate cannot be said to have taken cogniznance of an offence by directing an investigation by the police under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Reversing the findings of the High Court, the bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal while referring to the case of Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy And Others Versus V. Narayana Reddy And Others (1976) 3 SCC 252, stated that when the Magistrate in exercise of his judicial discretion directs investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C., he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence. It is only when the Magistrate after applying his mind prefers to follow the procedure under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. by resorting to Sections 200, he can be said to have taken cognizance of the offence.

“Broadly speaking, when on receiving a complaint, the Magistrate applies his mind for the purposes of proceeding under Section 200 and the succeeding sections in Chapter XV of the Code of 1973, he is said to have taken cognizance of the offence within the meaning of Section 190(1)(a). If, instead of proceeding under Chapter XV, he has, in the judicial exercise of his discretion, taken action of some other kind, such as issuing a search warrant for the purpose of investigation, or ordering investigation by the police under Section 156(3), he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence.”, the court said in Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy.

In the present case, the magistrate had perused the complaint and the documents in support thereof, and also the submissions made by the complainant and after having been prima facie satisfied, it had exercised its judicial discretion directing investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C.

Against the decision of the magistrate, the accused preferred Section 482 CrPC petition before the High Court. The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the magistrate's order directing a police investigation.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court shouldn't have exercised its discretionary powers under Section 482 CrPC in the instant case.

“Such order (magistrate's order) being just, legal and proper, the High Court should not have interfered with the same, more particularly while exercising limited powers under Section 482 of Cr. P.C.”, the court held.

Accordingly, the court allowed the complainant's appeal and restored the magistrate order directing a police investigation.

Case Title: M/S SAS INFRATECH PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 412

Click here to read/download the order