Section 156(3) CrPC is Not an Entitlement; It is a Judicial Option — Kerala High Court Refuses to Interfere with Magistrate’s Discretion to Hold Preliminary Inquiry under Section 202 CrPC

“The discretion of a Magistrate to decide whether a complaint should be referred to the police under Section 156(3) CrPC or be subjected to an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC cannot be interfered with merely because the complainant desires otherwise” —  Kerala High Court dismissed a challenge against a Magistrate’s refusal to order police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC and upheld the decision to conduct an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC. Justice G. Girish, reasserts the settled position that judicial discretion in pre-cognizance matters cannot be overridden by mere preference of the complainant. The ruling was passed in a dispute involving allegations of physical assault, criminal intimidation, and outrage of modesty stemming from a long-standing civil conflict over road access.

The case was initiated by K.C. Mohanan, who approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class-I, Kannur, alleging repeated assaults by his relatives K.C. Reetha, Raghunath, and Rithin. When the Magistrate posted the matter for recording of sworn statements under Section 200 and proceeded to act under Section 202 CrPC, the petitioner moved the High Court under Article 227, contending that the Magistrate was bound to order investigation by police under Section 156(3) CrPC.

"Four Alleged Crimes, One Complaint, and a Civil Dispute in Disguise" — Magistrate Rightly Chose Judicial Inquiry over Police Investigation

Justice G. Girish, while dismissing the petition, noted that the complaint was based on four separate incidents said to have occurred on 05.05.2022, 28.05.2022, 22.10.2022, and 18.02.2023. The High Court observed, “The joinder of four different crimes in a single complaint might have compelled the learned Magistrate to look into the issues in detail instead of straightaway forwarding it to the police.”

The Court further remarked that the complaint’s core was a “civil dispute relating to the use of a road,” and “perhaps, the complexities in the above regard might be the reason which prompted the learned Magistrate to proceed with the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C.”

In a sharp rejection of the petitioner’s submission that police investigation was inevitable due to the need for recovery of objects like a wooden rod and dagger allegedly used in the assault, the Court stated: “It cannot be expected that the police would be able to recover the wooden rod and dagger allegedly used three years ago.”

The Court also found no merit in the argument that custodial interrogation was necessary. “So also, the custodial interrogation of the respondents 3 to 5 appears to be irrelevant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

“Article 227 Cannot Be Used to Rewrite Judicial Discretion” — High Court Declines to Interfere in Absence of Manifest Injustice

In a detailed discussion on the limits of Article 227 of the Constitution, the Court declared, “The power vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be exercised sparingly to keep the Tribunals and Courts within the bounds of their authority.”

Relying on Supreme Court rulings in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2009) 5 SCC 616 and Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala (2019) 20 SCC 143, the High Court underscored the distinction between appellate and supervisory jurisdiction.

Quoting from Radhey Shyam, the Court said: “Orders of both civil and criminal courts can be examined only in very exceptional cases when manifest miscarriage of justice has been occasioned. Such power, however, is not to be exercised to correct a mistake of fact and of law.”

From Rajendra Diwan, the Court recalled: “Jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised in the cloak of an appeal in disguise.”

Hence, the Magistrate’s decision to proceed under Section 202 CrPC, instead of invoking police machinery under Section 156(3), was found to be well within the contours of law.

“When a Magistrate Exercises Discretion, It Cannot Be Challenged Like a Right Denied” — Court Upholds the Judicial Autonomy of Magistrates under CrPC

Justice G. Girish summarised the legal position: “Section 156(3) CrPC provides an option, not a mandate. The Magistrate’s decision to proceed under Section 202 CrPC instead of sending the complaint to police is well within his judicial discretion.”

Emphasising the procedural propriety of the Magistrate’s conduct, the Court concluded, “In view of the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above regard, it is not possible for this Court to interfere with the judicial discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate.”

The Court appreciated the assistance rendered by Amicus Curiae Advocate Vinay V., who was appointed to guide the Court on the legal nuances of the issue.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition in full, reinforcing the autonomy of Magistrates to conduct preliminary inquiry when circumstances demand judicial scrutiny before involving police.

Date of Decision: 22nd September 2025