Supreme Court Sets Aside Orders Directing FIR Registration Where Magistrate Acted Mechanically Under Section 156(3) CrPC

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard an appeal against a Nagpur Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court which had dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC and affirmed an order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Digras directing police to register an FIR under Sections 323, 294, 500, 504 and 506 IPC on a complaint by an advocate. The primary question concerned the correctness of the Magistrate's exercise of power under Section 156(3) CrPC.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court and Magistrate orders and directed that there was no case made out to put the appellant — a police officer — to trial on the alleged offences. The Court held that the Magistrate had acted "mechanically" when directing investigation under Section 156(3) without applying judicial mind to whether the complaint disclosed cognizable offences or whether police assistance was necessary. The Court found that allegations, even if believed, did not satisfy essential ingredients of offences under Sections 294, 504, 506 and 500 IPC and that continuance of police investigation would amount to "abuse of the process of law." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In fact, the Magistrate ought to direct investigation by the police only where the assistance of the Investigating Agency is necessary and the Court feels that the cause of justice is likely to suffer in the absence of investigation by the police. The Magistrate is not expected to mechanically direct investigation by the police without first examining whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, investigation by the State machinery is actually required or not. If the allegations made in the complaint are simple, where the Court can straightaway proceed to conduct the trial, the Magistrate is expected to record evidence and proceed further in the matter, instead of passing the buck to the Police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Ofcourse, if the allegations made in the complaint require complex and complicated investigation which cannot be undertaken without active assistance and expertise of the State machinery, it would only be appropriate for the Magistrate to direct investigation by the police authorities. The Magistrate is, therefore, not supposed to act merely as a Post Office and needs to adopt a judicial approach while considering an application seeking investigation by the Police."

Background

The dispute arose from an incident alleged to have occurred on 31.12.2011 when the complainant, a practicing advocate at Digras, claimed that the appellant — a policeman — humiliated, abused and threatened him. The complainant attempted to lodge a report at Digras Police Station on 03.01.2012 but alleged that the police refused to register the FIR; he then approached the Bar Association and the Superintendent of Police. When the police did not register the offence, the complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate, who, relying on Bombay High Court precedents, directed registration of the FIR and police investigation on 09.01.2012.

The appellant challenged that order by filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC; the Bombay High Court dismissed the petition on 16.10.2019. The Supreme Court admitted the appeal and stayed the investigation. On hearing, the Court examined whether the complaint, on its face, disclosed the ingredients of the offences alleged. Relying on this Court's precedents — including explanations of Section 294 (N.S. Madhanagopal v. K. Lalitha), the contours of Sections 504/506 (Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P.) and guidance on magistrate's duties (Ramdev Food Products and Priyanka Srivastava) — the Court concluded that mere abusive or humiliating words did not constitute obscenity under Section 294 or necessarily amount to intentional insult or criminal intimidation under Sections 504/506 without particulars of the words or intent. The judgment also noted that the recent Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) codified safeguards that required magistrates to consider police submissions and supporting affidavits before ordering investigation. The final result: the appeal succeeded, the High Court and Magistrate orders were set aside and pending applications were disposed of. The Court observed that continuation of the investigation would be an abuse of process.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 352/2020 (2025 INSC 139) Case Title: Om Prakash Ambadkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Kashmira Lambat, Advocate (for the appellant) For the Respondent(s): Mr. D. Kumanan, Advocate (for the State of Maharashtra)