Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court

High Court of Jammu & Kashmir Quashes FIR, Emphasizes Restrictions on Post-Cognizance FIR Registration

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order directing FIR registration under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after recording complainant’s statement deemed impermissible.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has quashed an FIR and an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishtwar, directing the registration of the FIR. The judgment, delivered on May 31, 2024, by Justice Rajnesh Oswal, underscores the legal position that a Magistrate cannot direct the registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after taking cognizance of an offence by recording the complainant’s statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

The petitioner, Vinod Kumar, challenged the order dated June 10, 2023, issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishtwar. The order directed the SHO of Police Station Dachhan to register an FIR under Sections 336 and 304-A of the IPC based on a complaint filed by Somi Devi. The complaint involved allegations of negligent actions leading to harm. Kumar sought to quash both the Magistrate’s order and the FIR, arguing that the order was procedurally flawed.

Justice Rajnesh Oswal emphasized that the direction for FIR registration under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is only permissible at the pre-cognizance stage. The court observed, “Once the Magistrate has recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C., he has taken cognizance of the offence, and therefore, the direction to register an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not permissible.”

The judgment highlighted the Supreme Court’s stance in the case of “M/S Sas Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Telangana,” which clarified the stages at which FIR directions can be issued. The Supreme Court had stated, “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.”

Justice Rajnesh Oswal remarked, “The order dated June 10, 2023, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishtwar as well as FIR registered pursuant to the order impugned are not sustainable in the eyes of law.”

The High Court’s decision to quash the FIR and the Magistrate’s order underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when directing the registration of FIRs. This judgment reaffirms the legal principle that post-cognizance directions for FIR registration under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are impermissible, thereby ensuring that the procedural safeguards are upheld in the judicial process.

Date of Decision: May 31, 2024

Vinod Kumar vs. Somi Devi

Similar News