Section 156(3) CrPC Cannot Be Invoked Without Exhausting Remedies Under Section 154: Supreme Court Quashes FIR

Before Approaching Magistrate Under Section 156(3), Complainant Must First Seek Remedies Under Section 154 CrPC — Supreme Court reiterated the mandatory procedural safeguard that a complainant must exhaust remedies available under Section 154(1) and (3) of the CrPC before invoking Section 156(3) to seek registration of an FIR. The Court categorically held that, “the complainant did not exhaust the remedies... both the learned Magistrate and the High Court have completely ignored the binding decision of this Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava.”

Setting aside both the Magistrate's order directing registration of an FIR and the Punjab and Haryana High Court's dismissal of the quashing petition, the Supreme Court declared that the invocation of Section 156(3) was procedurally flawed.

The second respondent filed a complaint before the Magistrate seeking registration of an FIR against the appellants alleging offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC, accusing them of cheating and criminal conspiracy. On 14th June 2017, the Magistrate directed the police to register an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC.

The appellants challenged this order before the Punjab and Haryana High Court by way of a quashing petition, which was dismissed. The matter then came up before the Supreme Court.

❝ Compliance with Section 154 CrPC Is Mandatory Before Invoking Section 156(3) ❞

The appellant argued, relying on Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. [(2015) 6 SCC 287] and Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka [(2022) 5 SCC 639], that the law mandates prior invocation of Section 154(1) (lodging complaint before the officer in charge) and Section 154(3) (approach to the Superintendent of Police) before seeking a direction under Section 156(3) for registration of an FIR.

The Supreme Court noted that: “Section 154(1) and 154(3) of the CrPC are the two remedies available for setting the criminal law in motion. Before a complainant chooses to adopt a remedy under Section 156(3), he must exhaust his remedies under sub-Sections (1) and (3) of Section 154 and must make those averments in the complaint and produce the documents in support.”

In the present case, the complaint merely mentioned that a representation was made to the Inspector General of Police, who forwarded it to the Economic Offences Wing, without any action under Section 154(1) or (3).

❝ Affidavit Requirement under Section 156(3) Is Not a Formality But a Safeguard ❞

The Court re-emphasized the ratio of Priyanka Srivastava, stating: “Applications under Section 156(3) are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The warrant for giving a direction that an application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit is so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made.”

The Bench added that routine invocation of Section 156(3) without exhausting Section 154 is likely to lead to harassment and misuse of criminal process.

❝ Economic Offences Wing Was Not Officer-in-Charge of Police Station ❞

Justice Abhay S. Oka, speaking for the Bench, observed that forwarding a complaint to the Economic Offences Wing cannot be treated as compliance with Section 154(1), which mandates information to be given directly to the officer-in-charge of a police station. The Court clarified: “The requirement of sub-Section (1) of Section 154 is that information regarding commission of a cognizable offence has to be furnished to an officer in charge of a police station. In this case, obviously, the said compliance was not made.”

Thus, the Court held that the invocation of Section 156(3) by the complainant was premature and contrary to the binding precedent in Priyanka Srivastava.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside:

• The order of the Magistrate dated 14th June 2017.

• The Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment dismissing the quashing petition.

However, the Court clarified: “We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the allegations made by the second respondent. The second respondent is free to take recourse to the remedies under Section 154 of the CrPC in accordance with law.”

The Court underlined the importance of judicial discipline by highlighting that both the Magistrate and the High Court failed to apply the settled principles laid down in Priyanka Srivastava. The Court lamented:

“Both the learned Magistrate and the High Court have completely ignored the binding decision of this Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava.”

Date of Decision: 6th March 2025