MADHU BALA versus SURESH KUMAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 32 · Decided: 23-07-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MADHU BALA 
v. 
SURESH KUMAR AND ORS. 
JULY 23, 1997 
(M.K. MUKHERJEE ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.) 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 156(3)-Magistrate ordeling 
registration of case and investigation upon Appellant's complaint under sec-
tions 498A and 406, !PC-High Coillt quashing the order under section 482, 
C Cr.P. C. holding Magistrate can only direct investigation under section 
156(3)-Whether the Magistrate can only direct investigation, but not direct 
the registration of case under section 156(3) HELD : Police bound to register 
a case upon Magistrate fonvarding complaint to it for investigation treating 
the same as FIR-Regardless of whether Magistrate has directed registration 
D of case or not as Police can only investigate after it has registered the case. 
The appellant filed a complaint against the respondents before the 
Magistrate under section 498A and 406, IPC. The Magistrate passed an 
order under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directing the police to register a case 
and investigate. On completion of the investigation, the Magistrate took 
E cognizance and charge was framed against the respondents. Thereafter, 
the appellant filed another complaint at another place against the respon-
dents under section 498A IPC as the concerned Magistrate had refused to 
frame the charge under section 498A in the earlier case and framed the 
charge only under section 406 IPC as the offence under 498A was com-
F 
mitted elsewhere. On the second complaint also the other Magistratl! 
passed a similar order for registration of a case and investigation and 
proceeded to frame the charge. 
G 
While the two cases were being tried, the respondents moved the 
High Court for quashing the proceedings on the ground that the orders 
passed by the two Magistrates directing the registration of cases unde1~ 
section 156(3) Cr.P.C. were wrong and illegal. The High Court quashed th1! 
orders of the two Magistrates. Hence this appeal. 
HELD : 1.1. When a written complaint disclosing a cognizable of·· 
H fence is made before a Magistrate, he may take cognizance upon the samt! 
32 
MAD HU BALA v. SURESH KUMAR 
33 
under section 190(1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code and proceed with A 
the same in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XV. The other 
-> 
option available to the Magistrate in such a case is to send the complaint 
to the appropriate Police Station under section 156(3) for investigation. 
Once such a direction is given under sub-section (3) of section 156 the 
• 
police is required to investigate into that complaint under sub-section (1) B 
thereof and on completion of investigation to submit a 'Police Report' in 
accordance with section 173(2) on which a Magistrate may take cognizance 
nnder section 190(l)(b) - but not under section 190(1)(a). Since a com· 
-~ 
plaint filed before a Magistrate cannot be a 'Police Report' in view of the 
definition of 'complaint' and since the investigation of a 'cognizable case' c 
by the police nnder section 156(1) has to culminate in 'police report' the 
'complaint' • as soon as an order under section 156(3) is passed thereon • 
transforms itself into a report given in writing within the meaning of 
section 154 of code, which is known as First Information Rep~rt (F.l.R). 
As under section 156(1), the police can only investigat~ a cognizable 'case', 
it has to formally register a case on that report. [37-A-E] 
D 
-I 
1.2. Whenever a Magistrate direct~ an investigation on a 'complaint' 
the police has to register a cognizable case on that complaint treating the 
same as FIR and comply with the requirements of the Punjab Police Rules, 
1934. It, therefore, passes comprehension as to how the direction of a E 
Magistrate asking the police to 'register a case' makes an order of inves-
ligation under section 156(3) legally unsustainable. Indeed, even if a 
Magistrate does not pass a direction to register a case, still in view of 
provisions of section 156(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code which em-
powers the police to investigate into a cognizable 'case' and the Rules F 
framed under the Indian Police Act, 1861 it (the police) is duty bound to 
· formally register a case and then investigate into the same. The provisions 
of the Code, therefore, does not in any way stand in the way of a Magistrate 
to direct the police to register a case at the police station and then 
investigate into the same. When an order for investigation under section 
G 
156(3) of the code is to be made the p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.