High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court 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 Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation at Pre-Cognizance Stage Justified: Gauhati High Court Upholds Magistrate’s Discretion in Bigamy Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Gauhati High Court has upheld the Magistrate’s decision to direct a police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in a case involving charges of bigamy, obscene acts, criminal intimidation, and criminal trespass. The petitioner, Ishan Saikia, sought to quash the FIR and charge-sheet, citing procedural lapses. However, the court affirmed the lower court’s action, emphasizing the appropriateness of initiating an investigation at the pre-cognizance stage.

Background: The case originated when the complainant, identified as the wife of the petitioner, filed a complaint alleging that Ishan Saikia had contracted a second marriage without dissolving the first. This led to the registration of Nagaon, Sadar PS Case No. 1374/2019 under Sections 494, 294, 506, and 447 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Nagaon, invoked Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., directing the Officer-in-Charge (OC) of Nagaon PS to investigate the matter. Following the police investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, which the petitioner subsequently sought to quash.

Court Observations and Views:

Magistrate’s Discretion under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.: The court extensively discussed the scope and application of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., clarifying the conditions under which a Magistrate can direct a police investigation. “The Magistrate is empowered to order an investigation at the pre-cognizance stage and is not obligated to take cognizance immediately upon receiving a complaint,” the judgment noted. This underscores the judicial discretion granted to Magistrates in such matters.

Application of Judicial Mind: The court observed that the Magistrate must apply judicial mind to the allegations before issuing any directives. In this case, the Magistrate’s order for investigation did not indicate judicial cognizance of the offense but was a preliminary step to ascertain the veracity of the complaint. The bench remarked, “The order u/s 156(3) of the Code is in the nature of an administrative order directing the police to exercise their powers to investigate a cognizable offense.”

Precedents and Judicial Interpretation: The judgment referenced key Supreme Court and High Court precedents, including the cases of Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of UP and Panchabhai Popatbhai Butani vs. State of Maharashtra. These cases highlight that while Sections 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. provisions are typically prerequisites, exceptions can be made where direct Magistrate intervention is justified. “The dictum of law is not free from exception because there can be cases when non-compliance of the provisions of Section 154(3) would not divest the Magistrate of his jurisdiction in terms of Sec. 156(3),” the court stated.

Justice Malasri Nandi emphasized, “The power to direct investigation by police u/s 156(3) is to be exercised before taking cognizance of the offense disclosed in the complaint. This administrative direction does not equate to judicial cognizance of the offense.”

Decision: The Gauhati High Court’s dismissal of the petition reinforces the judiciary’s discretion in ordering investigations under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. at the pre-cognizance stage. By upholding the Magistrate’s order, the court affirmed the procedural appropriateness and necessity of police investigations in establishing the facts of a complaint. This decision is likely to impact future cases by clarifying the judicial framework surrounding pre-cognizance investigations.

Date of Decision: 20th May 2024

ISHAN SAIKIA vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.

Similar News