Direct Section 156(3) CrPC Application Before Exhausting Police Remedies A 'Procedural Irregularity', Not Illegal: Bombay High Court

"Entertaining such an Application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC directly by the Magistrate would be a mere procedural irregularity and may not be illegal or without jurisdiction," Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court, in a recent ruling, held that a Magistrate entertaining an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) directly, without the complainant exhausting prior police remedies, is merely a procedural irregularity and does not vitiate the order. A single-judge bench of Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe observed that as long as a cognizable offence is disclosed, such an order is not without jurisdiction.

The dispute arose after Ratnakar Bank Limited (RBL Bank) accused its employees in the Credit Card Sales Department of receiving kickbacks from Direct Selling Agents and embezzling over Rs. 12 crores. The Bank initially approached the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), which closed the complaint in 2022. The Bank subsequently filed a fresh complaint directly before the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The Magistrate directed the registration of an FIR, prompting the accused employees to approach the High Court seeking to quash the FIR.

The primary question before the court was whether the Magistrate's order was without jurisdiction for entertaining the Section 156(3) application directly, without the Bank resorting to Section 154(3) of the CrPC. The court was also called upon to determine whether the affidavit accompanying the application failed to comply with the mandatory guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.

Conflict Between Supreme Court Precedents Addressed

The petitioners heavily relied on the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P., arguing that a Section 156(3) application is strictly not maintainable without prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3). They contended that there was a conflict between this view and the apex court's later decision in Anurag Bhatnagar v. State (NCT of Delhi), urging the High Court to follow the earlier precedent. The High Court, however, rejected the submission that any such doctrinal conflict existed between the two rulings.

Procedural Irregularity Does Not Vitiate Jurisdiction

Analyzing both precedents, Justice Bhobe clarified the legal position regarding the invocation of magisterial powers. The court noted that while the statutory remedies must ordinarily be exhausted, a deviation from this sequence does not strip the Magistrate of their inherent authority. The bench explained that such an omission is curable and does not render the subsequent registration of an FIR invalid or illegal.

"Although the statutory remedies under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the Cr.PC must be exhausted before filing an Application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC, entertaining such an Application... directly by the Magistrate would be a mere procedural irregularity."

No Prejudice Caused By Setting Criminal Law In Motion

The High Court observed that the Magistrate had clearly recorded their satisfaction that a prima facie cognizable offence of financial fraud was disclosed in the complaint. The bench noted that the impugned order was passed simply to ensure the matter was formally investigated by the police machinery. The court highlighted that the petitioners had neither shown nor claimed any actual prejudice caused by the Magistrate's procedural deviation.

Affidavit Complied With Criminal Manual Guidelines

Addressing the petitioner's secondary argument, the court examined the affidavit filed by the Bank's Assistant Vice President in light of the High Court's earlier decision in Sayed Anwar Ahmed v. State of Maharashtra. The bench noted that the affiant had declared on solemn affirmation that the contents were true to his knowledge, thereby taking full responsibility for the allegations. The court observed that the core objective of the guidelines is to ensure accountability and deter false statements, which was substantially met as per Chapter VII of the Criminal Manual.

Technicalities Cannot Scuttle Major Fraud Probe

The court emphasised that the allegations involved a financial fraud and embezzlement of public money to the tune of over Rs. 11 crores. The bench stated that in the specific facts of the case, it would not be appropriate to get bogged down in procedural technicalities when a substantial cognizable offence was clearly made out. The court reiterated that the primary purpose of Section 156(3) is to protect institutions and citizens by ensuring access to justice when police fail to register a crime.

The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, refusing to quash the FIR registered against the bank employees. Finding no case made out for interference, the court discharged the rule but continued the interim protection against the filing of a chargesheet for an additional fifteen days to allow the petitioners to seek further recourse.

Date of Decision: 17 July 2026