Magistrate Must Be Conscious Of Consequences While Passing Order U/Sec 156(3) CrPC; Must Examine Relevant Materials: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a Judicial Magistrate is required to be conscious of the consequences while passing an Order under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

It being a judicial order, relevant materials are expected to be taken note of, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh said while quashing an FIR registered pursuant to an order passed by a Magistrate.

In this case, an FIR alleging an offence of rape was lodged against the petitioner. Before the High Court, he contended that the entire complaint is fostered against the petitioner who is a retired person by his estranged sister-in-law out of the family dispute. That he is not even the resident of that area and a similar complaint was given by her against his son which was closed on investigation as false and motivated.  That he was actually attending the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat at the time of the alleged incident and a number of litigations going on between the parties. The High Court refused to quash the FIR holding that facts being in the realm of dispute, discretion under Section 482 CrPC cannot be exercised..

Taking note of the facts, the bench said that this is fit case where the crime registered is required to be quashed. The court said:

"The Judicial Magistrate is required to be conscious of the consequences while passing an Order under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.PC. It being a judicial order, relevant materials are expected to be taken note of. Similarly, the Court of Sessions shall consider the materials available on record while dealing with the protest petition on a final report filed."

The court noted that the complainant did not appear before it either to deny or contradict the averments made.

"Investigation reveals that she was indeed the house help of Smt. Asha. If there is a dispute between the two families, one cannot expect respondent no.2 to go to the place of father-in-law of the petitioner who allegedly taken sides with the petitioner as against Smt. Asha and that too from a different village, for the purpose of collecting the fodder. The petitioner is an aged man and a similar complaint given by the employer of respondent no.2 against his son was found to be not true. Even in the present case, the investigation made thus far reveals that the complaint is motivated. It is obviously an abuse of process of law.", the court added while quashing FIR.

Click here to Read/Download Order