Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that the Magistrate is required to apply his mind before ordering an investigation under Section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).      

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Om Prakash Ambadkar v. The State of Maharashtra (2025). 

What was the Background of Om Prakash Ambadkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Case?  

• The case involves Respondent No. 3, who is the original complainant, Adv. Nitin Devidas Kubade, a practicing advocate residing in Digras, Yavatmal. The appellant in this case is a police officer against whom the complaint has been filed. 
• The incident in question occurred on 31st December 2011 between 11:30 PM and 11:40 PM, during which the complainant was allegedly humiliated by the appellant, who is a policeman. 
• Following the incident, the complainant attempted to lodge an FIR at the Digras Police Station, but the police authorities refused to register his complaint. 
• In response to this refusal, the complainant sought support from the Bar Association, Digras, by submitting a formal grievance. Subsequently, he also submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal, but the police authorities continued to avoid registering the FIR, allegedly because the accused individuals were police officers. 
• As a result of these unsuccessful attempts, the complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Digras. In this application, he requested the Magistrate to direct the police authorities to register the FIR based on his earlier complaint. 
• After reviewing the application, the accompanying reports, and legal submissions, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Digras, found that there were prima facie allegations indicating the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 323, 294, 500, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• Consequently, the Magistrate directed the Digras Police Station to register the FIR and initiate an investigation as per Section 156(3) of the CrPC.  
• The appellant, aggrieved by the Magistrate’s order, filed an application under Section 482 of the CrPC before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging the legality of the order.  
• However, the High Court, through its judgment dated October 16, 2019, dismissed the application and affirmed the order of the Magistrate, thereby upholding the directive to register the FIR and proceed with the investigation. 
• The appellant has now approached the Supreme Court by filing the present appeal against the judgment of the High Court.  

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court held that ordinarily, Section 156(3) of the CrPC is invoked by the complainant when the police authorities decline to register a First Information Report (FIR). 
• However, it is the discretion of the concerned Magistrate whether to order police investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC or take cognizance upon the complaint and issue process or dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of CrPC. 
• Once the order for police investigation is passed under Section 156 (3) of CrPC it becomes a police case and at the end of investigation the police may either file a chargesheet or closure report. 
• However, whenever an application for investigation is made under Section 156 (3) to the Magistrate it is his duty to apply his mind for the purpose of ascertaining if the allegations levelled constitute any cognizable offence or not. 
• The Court held that in the present facts the ingredients of the offence alleged are not at all made out. This reflects the mechanical manner in which the order for police investigation under Section 156 (3) has been passed. 
• In the light of the word ‘may’ used in Section 156 (3) of CrPC the Magistrate is required to apply his mind before ordering investigation under Section 156 (3) of CrPC. 
• The Court thus, held that in the facts of the present case continuance of investigation by the police will only be an abuse of process of law. 

What is the Difference between Section 156 of CrPC and Section 175 of BNSS?

What are the Safeguards Introduced by Section 175 of BNSS? 

• The following are the new changes which are introduced in the form of safeguards to prevent abuse of process of law: 
  • 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 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). 
• It is to be noted that Section 175 (3) of BNSS is a result of law laid down by the judicial decisions over the years. 
• In the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (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.