Source – Kerala High Court

Why in News?

The bench of Justice Sophy Thomas held that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) cannot be exercised to quash a First Information Report (FIR) by a High Court if it was registered through procedure under Section 156(3) of CrPC.

• The Kerala HC gave this observation in the case of Udaykumar v. State of Kerala.

What is the Background of Udaykumar v. State of Kerala Case?

• The petitioner, who was charged with a crime, appealed to the HC to quash the FIR under Section 482 CrPC while the investigation was ongoing under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC.
• The petitioner contended that the criminal charges against them were not justifiable, and therefore, the FIR should be quashed.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Kerala HC observed that “Petitioner cannot challenge the investigation undertaken by Police, which was so directed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of CrPC”.
• The court further said that it can initiate proceedings to quash FIR registered through Section 156(3) of CrPC under Section 482 of CrPC only if there are compelling and justifiable reasons, there cannot be any interference with the investigation proceedings.

What is Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

• About:
  • This section empowers a Magistrate to direct the police to conduct an investigation into a cognizable offence.
• Cognizable Offences:
  • Cognizable offences are defined under Section 2(c) of CrPC they are those for which a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant. These offenses are usually more serious in nature.
• Application by a Complainant:
  • If a person makes an application to the Magistrate and satisfies the Magistrate that an offence has been committed, the Magistrate can order the police to investigate the matter.
• Judicial Discretion:
  • The Magistrate has the discretion to determine whether a case merits a police investigation based on the facts presented.
• Purpose:
  • The initiation of criminal proceedings typically begins with the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) with the police. However, there may be situations where an individual, aggrieved by the commission of an offence, seeks the intervention of the judiciary to ensure a proper and unbiased investigation.
  • Section 156(3) comes into play when a Magistrate, who has the authority to take cognizance of an offense under section 190, is approached with a complaint or an application requesting the initiation of an investigation.
  • The provision empowers the Magistrate to direct the police or any other competent authority to conduct an investigation into the matter.

What are the Landmark Judgments Cited in the Case?

• Johny Joseph v. State of Kerala (1986):
  • The Kerala HC while considering the quashing of FIR registered through Section 156(3) of CrPC held that “In a case instituted on a police report, the court gets jurisdiction to try the offender, only when the final report is filed, and cognizance taken”.
• HDFC Securities Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2017):
  • The Supreme Court held that “An order under Section 156(3) of CrPC requiring investigation by Police cannot cause injury of irreparable nature. The stage of cognizance would arise only after the investigation report is filed before the Magistrate”.
    • Cognizance here includes proceeding under Section 482 of CrPC.