Summary
The Court affirmed remand of a rape complaint for judicial reconsideration but set aside the Magistrate’s subsequent direction to register an FIR. Section 156(3) requires application of judicial mind; neither mechanical registration nor a premature merits adjudication dismissing allegations as baseless is permissible. The Magistrate must choose the lawful procedural course without the Supreme Court deciding the allegations.
Issues
- Scope of judicial discretion under section 156(3), and its relationship with mandatory police registration and post-cognizance inquiry.
- Whether the Magistrate’s original rejection and subsequent mechanical FIR direction could stand.
Provisions considered
- Sections 154, 156(3), 190, 200, 202 and 203, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Distinguished police registration, pre-cognizance investigation orders and the post-cognizance complaint procedure; required judicial consideration of the appropriate course. (¶¶ 14-18, 22-32, 36-40)
Held
- Mandatory registration of information disclosing a cognizable offence under section 154 does not make arrest automatic. Preliminary inquiry is permissible within the limits stated in Lalita Kumari; registration, investigation and arrest involve distinct statutory requirements. (¶ 14-18)
- A direction under section 156(3) requires judicial application of mind and cannot issue routinely. The Magistrate may order investigation before cognizance, take cognizance and follow the complaint procedure, or direct a preliminary inquiry where justified under Lalita Kumari. The section 156(3) and section 202 powers operate at different stages. (¶¶ 22-32, 36)
- The Court declined to determine the truth of the allegations or prescribe the particular course the Magistrate must choose. An adjudication declaring the allegations baseless without further lawful scrutiny was impermissible; the High Court was therefore correct to remit the matter. (¶ 33-37)
- On remand the Magistrate had misread the High Court’s direction by ordering FIR registration without the required exercise of discretion. That subsequent order was set aside and the matter remitted again for judicial consideration of the available statutory courses. (¶¶ 38, 40)
- The accused had no right to appear before the Magistrate before summons, although they could contest the complainant’s revision against rejection of the section 156(3) application. Documents filed before the superior courts could be brought onto the Magistrate’s record, subject to the complainant’s right to contest genuineness and contents. (¶¶ 39, 40)
Result
Appeals disposed of: High Court’s remand affirmed; subsequent Magistrate’s FIR-registration order set aside; matter remitted for fresh exercise of judicial discretion. No finding on the merits of the allegations.