LexOM PRAKASH AMBADKAR versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1469 : 2025 INSC 139 Om Prakash Ambadkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 2020) 16 January 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Magistrate passed an order under Section 156(3), Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 directing registration of FIR against the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 500, 504 & 506, Penal Code, 1860. Whether the High Court was justified in affirming the said order and rejecting the petition filed by the appellant under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Headnotes† Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.156(3) – Scope – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.323, 294, 500, 504, 506 – On facts, whether a case is made out to put the appellant to trial for the alleged offences: Held: No – Whenever any application is filed by the complainant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate seeking police investigation u/s.156(3), Cr.P.C., it is the duty of the concerned Magistrate to apply his mind for the purpose of ascertaining whether the allegations levelled in the complaint constitute any cognizable offence or not – However, in the present case, the Magistrate passed the order directing police investigation mechanically without ascertaining whether the allegations levelled disclose commission of any offence or not – On facts, none of the ingredients to constitute the offences punishable u/ss.323, 294, 500, 504 & 506, IPC are borne out – Order passed by the Magistrate directing police investigation u/s.156(3), Cr.P.C, set aside – Impugned order passed by the High Court affirming the said order also set aside. [Paras 11-13, 19, 37] Penal Code, 1860 – s.294 – ‘Obscene act’: Held: Obscene act for the purpose of s.294 has a particular meaning – Mere abusive, humiliating or defamatory words by 1470 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports themselves are not sufficient to attract the offence u/s.294 – The act of a police officer assaulting the complainant within public view or public as alleged does not amount to an obscene act. [Para 15] Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – s.156(3) – ‘may’ – Remedy u/s.156(3) is discretionary – Prerequisites to be followed before approaching the Magistrate u/s.156(3) – Discussed. [Para 24] Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.156 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.175 – Changes brought by BNSS to the scheme of s.156, CrPC – Enumerated. [Paras 29-35] Case Law Cited Madhanagopal and Another v. K. Lalitha [2022] 15 SCR 649 : (2022) 17 SCC 818; Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [2015] 5 SCR 283 : (2015) 6 SCC 439 – relied on. Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P [2015] 4 SCR 108 : (2015) 6 SCC 287; Babu Venkatesh v. The State Of Karnataka (2022) 5 SCC 639 – referred to. List of Acts Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. List of Keywords Section 156(3) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973; Police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973; Direction to register FIR; Cognizable offence; Judicial Magistrate; Order passed mechanically; Mechanical manner; Sections 323, 294, 500, 504, 506 of the Penal Code, 1860; Quashing; Application of judicial mind; Application of mind by the Magistrate; Cognizance; Abuse of process of law; Simple hurt; Obscene act; Obscenity; Criminal Intimidation; Defamation. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 2020 From the Judgment and Order dated 16.10.2019 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur in CRLA (APL) No. 32 of 2012 [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1471 Om Prakash Ambadkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Kishor Lambat, Ms. Kashmira Lambat, Ms. Suja Joshi, Prem S Mankani, Digant Mishra, Kambli Anilkumar Laxman, Milind Vaishnav (for M/s. Lambat And Associates). Advs. for the Respondents: Shantanu Phanse, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. The Respondent No. 3 who is the original complainant, although served with the notice issued by this Court, has chosen not to remain present either in-person or through an advocate and oppose this appeal. 2. This appeal arises from the impugned common Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur dated 16.10.2019 in Criminal Application No. 33/2012 by which the High Court rejected the appli
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.