Section 156(3) Cr.P.C – While exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, the Magistrate is required to merely peruse the application filed by the complainant – Examine whether the facts disclose a prima facie – Necessary ingredients of cognizable offences requiring investigation by police – Not expected to undertake an exhaustive evaluation of evidence nor adjudicate upon the merits of the allegations.
The present appeal has been filed impugning the common judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka, and arise out of substantially similar complaints relating to lands distinct plot numbers in Bengaluru, and involve common accused persons, interconnected transactions and identical issues concerning the scope of interference by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The concise facts of the case is that a complaint was submitted to the jurisdictional Kothanuru Police Station, which declined to entertain the same, upon which the complainant had presented a private complaint before the learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru. Upon consideration of the averments contained therein, the ACMM, had exercised powers under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and had directed that the complaint be forwarded to the jurisdictional police for registration of an FIR and investigation in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said order, the jurisdictional Police Station, i.e., Kothanuru P.S., Bengaluru City, had registered FIR in Crime No.162/2013 on 16.11.2013, against sixteen accused persons, under Sections 379, 381, 383, 415, 420,409, 463, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 477, 107,115, 116(1), 117, 118, 120 and 120-B IPC.
Thereafter, aggrieved by the registration of FIR, the accused/respondents, namely, had approached the High Court of Karnataka by filing petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of the criminal 12 proceedings emanating from the FIR in Crime No.162 of 2013. The High Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the petitions and quashed the proceedings vide common judgment dated 28.09. 2016.
The High Court had opined that the identity of the land and the question of overlap between the rival claims constituted seriously disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication by a competent civil Court. The High Court went on to observe that even the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was unsustainable for want of proper application of mind. Consequently, the criminal proceedings emanating from the FIRs were quashed. Hence, the Appeal.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the Magistrate had merely exercised jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and had directed to conduct investigation by the police. It cannot be said that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, the Magistrate is required to merely peruse the application filed by the complainant and examine whether the facts disclosed therein prima facie disclose the necessary ingredients of cognizable offences requiring investigation by police. The Magistrate is not expected to undertake an exhaustive evaluation of evidence nor adjudicate upon the merits of the allegations. It has been held unequivocally that if the Magistrate arrives at a conclusion that prima facie a cognizable offence is disclosed, then he would be fully justified in directing the concerned SHO to register an FIR and proceed with investigation in accordance with law. It is well settled that the mere existence of a civil remedy does not by itself bar criminal proceedings where the allegations prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly and categorically held that, High Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, must remain circumspect in interfering with such an exercise of power and ought to intervene only where it is evident that the order lacks any legal foundation or if it suffers from any perversity or that the same may result in failure of justice. In such circumstances, the High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, should not travel beyond the allegations contained in the complaint and the material placed by the complainant by delving into the defences sought to be projected by the accused-respondents. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the common impugned judgment passed by the High Court was set aside and the FIRs and the proceedings arising there from stands revived and restored to the file of the concerned Police Station and Magistrate, for proceeding in accordance with law.
Accamma Sam Jacob Vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. Etc.,- [Diary No(s). 20175 of 2022 (2026 INSC 362)] - 13.04.2026
