Magistrate’s Preliminary Investigation Order Upheld by High Court: Petition Dismissed as Premature as the Magistrate had not yet disposed of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Allahabad, May 22, 2024 — In a recent judgment, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, dismissed a petition filed by Khushnuma Begum challenging an order by a Magistrate that directed a preliminary investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The High Court, led by Hon’ble Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, emphasized that the petition was premature as the Magistrate had not yet disposed of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

The case revolved around a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which sought to invalidate an order dated April 20, 2024, by the Magistrate. The petitioner, Khushnuma Begum, argued that the Magistrate misinterpreted the precedents set by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015) and Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. (2014), which delineate the conditions under which preliminary investigations can be ordered.

Khushnuma Begum’s husband, Siraj Ahmad Khan, is an accused in a double murder case. The petitioner’s application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was aimed at lodging an FIR against Fareed Khan, the informant in the double murder case, and others, accusing them of loot, mischief, and other offenses.

Justice Khan meticulously reviewed the legal framework and previous rulings related to the Magistrate's powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The court highlighted the following key points:

Magistrate’s Authority: The court confirmed that the Magistrate has the authority to order a preliminary investigation in appropriate cases, as elucidated in the Supreme Court rulings of Priyanka Srivastava and Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri (2023).

Filing Affidavit Requirement: The court reiterated the necessity for applicants to support their applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with affidavits to deter frivolous filings, as emphasized in Priyanka Srivastava.

Premature Petition: The petition was deemed premature since the Magistrate had not yet made a final decision on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Justice Khan directed the Magistrate to dispose of the application expeditiously and in accordance with the legal principles established by the Supreme Court and the High Court.

Justice Khan underscored that the Magistrate's directive for a preliminary investigation was neither illegal nor irregular. He noted that the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava and subsequent rulings had clarified that Magistrates must exercise vigilance and verify the veracity of allegations in applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

The court observed that the discretion to order a preliminary investigation is crucial to prevent the misuse of judicial processes. The Supreme Court has advised Magistrates to ensure that such applications are not used to harass individuals or settle personal scores.

The judgment holds significant implications for the procedural conduct of Magistrates concerning preliminary investigations under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. By affirming the Magistrate's authority and emphasizing the need for judicial vigilance, the High Court's ruling reinforces the legal safeguards against the misuse of judicial processes.

The case underscores the necessity for thorough judicial scrutiny in the initial stages of criminal complaints, ensuring that the legal processes are not subverted by frivolous or malicious applications.

Date of Decision: May 22, 2024

Khushnuma Begum v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And 2 Others