Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that before the complainant chooses to adopt the remedy under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), he must exhaust the remedies provided for under Section 154 (1) and (3).   

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Ranjit Singh Bath & Anr v. Union Territory Chandigarh & Anr (2025). 

What was the Background of Ranjit Singh Bath & Anr v. Union Territory Chandigarh & Anr.(2025) Case?   

• The second respondent filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). 
• Based on the complaint, the Judicial Magistrate passed an order on 14th June 2017, directing the concerned Police Station to register an FIR under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• The appellants challenged this order by filing a quashing petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. 
• The High Court dismissed the quashing petition through an impugned order. 
• The points raised by the Appellant were as follows: 
  • The appellants’ counsel relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2015), particularly paragraph 27 of the judgment. 
  • The appellants’ counsel also referred to Babu Venkatesh & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.(2022), which followed the Priyanka Srivastava decision. 
• The points raised by the Respondent were as follows: 
  • The second respondent's senior counsel argued that while there was no specific mention of compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the CrPC, the compliance was made in substance. 
  • It was stated in paragraph 14 of the complaint that a written complaint had been addressed to the Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh, and was marked to the Economic Offences Wing for inquiry on 29th January 2014. 
  • The second respondent's counsel admitted that there was no explicit averment that Section 154(3) of the CrPC was invoked. 
• Thus, the matter was before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that the requirement under Section 154 (1) of CrPC is that the information regarding the commission of cognizable offence has to be furnished to the officer in charge of police station. 
• Further, Section 154 (3) only comes into picture when the officer in charge of the police station refuses or neglects to register the FIR under Section 154 (1). 
• The Court held that before the complainant chooses to adopt the remedy under Section 156 (3), he must exhaust the remedies provided for under Section 154 (1) and (3) of CrPC and he must make those averments in the complaint and produce the documents in support. 
• The Court held that in the present facts the Court has completely ignored the binding precedent in the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of UP (2015). 
• The Court quashed and set aside the steps taken on the basis of an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate.

What is Section 156 (3) of CrPC? 

• Section 156 (3) of CrPC provides that the Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned. 
• This provision is contained in Section 175 (3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
• The Comparison of the two is as follows: 

What are the Important Case Laws on this Aspect? 

• Om Prakash Ambadkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025): 
  • The Court observed that following safeguards have been introduced in Section 175 (3) of BNSS which were absent in Section 156 (3) of CrPC: 
    • Firstly, the requirement of making an application to the Superintendent of Police upon refusal by the officer in charge of a police station to lodge the FIR has been made mandatory, and the applicant making an application under Section 175(3) is required to furnish a copy of the application made to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), supported by an affidavit, while making the application to the Magistrate under Section 175(3). 
    • Secondly, the Magistrate has been empowered to conduct such an enquiry as he deems necessary before making an order directing the registration of FIR.  
    • Thirdly, the Magistrate is required to consider the submissions of the officer in charge of the police station as regards the refusal to register an FIR before issuing any directions under Section 175(3).
• Priyanka Srivastava v. State of UP (2015): 
  • The Court held that prior to making an application to the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. the applicant must necessarily make applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3). 
  • It was further observed by the Court that applications made under Section 156(3) of the CrPC must necessarily be supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant. 
  • The reason given by the Court for introducing such a requirement was that applications under Section 156(3) of the CrPC were being made in a routine manner and in a number of cases only with a view to cause harassment to the accused by registration of FIR.