Skip to main content

Magistrate Cannot Convert CRPC 156 (FIR Demand) into CRPC 200(Trial) Complaint Case


Delhi District Court
Presently Residing At : vs Sh. Kaushal @ Bunty on 19 September, 2009
Author: Ms. Shailender Kaur

3. It was further contented that the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the Judgment Parvez Parwaz Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2009 Cri LJ 614 has held :

'While passing order for treating the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as complaint, the following observations made by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Babu Gupta (supra) must be kept in mind by Magistrate/Judges:
'However, it is always to be kept in mind that it is the primary duty of the police to investigate in cases involving cognizable offences and aggrieved person cannot be forced to proceed in the manner provided by Chapter XV and to produce his witness at his cost to bring home the charge to the accused. It is the duty of the state to provide safeguards to the life and property of a citizen. If any intrusion is made by an offender, it is for the State to set the law into motion and come to the aid of the person aggrieved.

Thus, the complaint moved U/s 156 (3) Cr.PC could not have been converted by the Learned MM U/s 200 Cr.PC.

5. It was thus contended that the complaint discloses prima facie cognizable offences involving serious allegations requiring specialized investigations by police, the evidence of which is beyond the reach of the complainant. Moreover, the case requires custodial interrogation for recovery of articles or discovery of facts. Thus in these circumstances FIR against the accused persons under the provisions of law is mandatorily required to be registered.

In the judgment Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy & Ors. Vs. V. Narayana Reddy & Ors. (supra) Apex Court has clearly laid down the law in this regard stated as under:-

'If on a reading of the complaint he finds that the allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and the forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) will be conducive to justice and save the valuable time of the Magistrate from, being wasted in inquiring into a matter which was primarily the duty of the police to investigate, he will be justified in adopting that course as an alternative to taking cognizance of the offence, himself.'

8. Thus, unlike SHO the magistrate as empowered in U/s 190 has a discretion U/s 156 (3)Cr.PC to order an investigation or to conduct an inquiry himself U/s 200 Cr.PC. In this case the Learned Magistrate has dismissed the application U/s 156 (3) Cr.PC but has proceeded to record pre-summoning evidence on the complaint of the petitioner U/s 200 Cr.PC holding by that evidence in this case is within the possession and reach of the parties. Thus, in view of the above, there is no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Learned Magistrate. Moreover, in the judgment Gopal Krishan Dua Vs State CRL Rev. P. No. 571 of 2008 of CRL MA 1229/2008 decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 25.03.09 it has been observed as follows :

''The learned MM had the discretion to either forward the complaint to the police for registering an FIR or decide to direct the complainant's evidence to be recorded. The decision of the learned MM to opt for the latter course cannot, in the facts of the present case, be held to be erroneous or illegal. 

Gauhati High Court

Sekh Abdullah And 2 Ors vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 5 March, 2020

The impugned complaint of the respondent No.2 filed on 12.04.2018 was under Chapter XII, Section 156(3) CrPC and the same was not a complaint under Chapter XV, Section 200 CrPC. As such once the JMFC, Rangia, Kamrup by the order dated 05.05.2018 passed in said CR No. 45/2018 has rejected the impugned complainant of the respondent No. 2 filed under Section 156(3) CrPC, the Magistrate cannot proceed with the same complaint under Section 200 CrPC. The Magistrate, after rejecting a complaint filed under Section 156(3) CrPC, does not possess any such Suo-Moto power under the provisions of the CrPC to convert the same complaint to be a complaint under Section 200 CrPC. At best the Magistrate could have return the said complaint of the respondent No.2 filed under Section 156(3) CrPC enabling her to file an appropriate complaint/ application under Section 200 CrPC.

Delhi District Court

Ms. Heenu Mahajan vs Narender Mahajan on 24 January, 2012

4. I have heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel for petitioner as well as of Ld. Addl. PP for the State. I have also perused the entire material placed before me including the Ms. Heenu Mahajan Vs. Narender Mahajan & Ors. (CR No.73/11) Page No.7 of pages 10 impugned order, contents of the petition specially the grounds taken therein and I find substance in the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the observations of Ld. MM is erroneous. Although the accused are known to the petitioner but still there are various aspects which need investigation. The complaint depicts commission of the offence of theft by the accused persons. For the purpose of establishing the same, recovery of the stolen articles are must, which can be possible only through police investigation. Moreover, the petitioner is claiming ownership of the shop while the accused persons are also claiming ownership of the shop. In the circumstances, when both of them are claiming title on the basis of ownership documents, it means that one of them is not having the genuine documents. To find out as to whose documents are not genuine and to recover the same, police investigation is necessary. It is well settled that if complaint discloses cognizable offence, then it becomes the duty of police officials to register the case and then investigate the matter and if after investigation, the police find that no offence is made out, it can file the closure report. The basis, reliability, genuineness and credibility of the information disclosing the cognizable offence are not the conditions precedent for registering a case under Sec.154 Cr.P.C.

Allahabad High Court
Smt. Santosh Kumari Wife Of Late ... vs State Of U.P. on 1 June, 2007

Equivalent citations: 2007 CriLJ 3869

15. More over Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah had no power under the aforesaid section to convert an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. into a complaint against the, wishes of victim. Filing: of complaint is right which is vested in the victim or aggrieved person. The Magistrate has got no right to file a complaint. He has also got no right to start litigation on the basis of an application seeking direction from him to get the FIR of cognizable offence registered. If no complaint is filed before him no cognizance of the offence can be taken by the Magistrate under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. An application with the prayer to get the FIR of cognizable offences registered and offences investigated is certainly not a complaint as is defined under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. The applicant never wanted the Magistrate to take action self but he wanted the Magistrate to take action of other kind and exercise administrative power under chapter XII Cr.P.C. and direct the police to register the FIR and investigate the offence. In the present case, aggrieved person has not filed the complaint before the Magistrate, for which different procedure is laid down under Chapter XIV of Cr.P.C. Under Section 90(1)(a) Cr.P.C., if complaint is filed, then the Magistrate can take cognizance. In the said section it is not provided that the Magistrate can convert suo motu an application for registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint when no such payer is made by the aggrieved person informing his application as a complaint. More over the procedure of the complaint case as is mentioned in the Code of Criminal Procedure is such that the prosecution of the complaint case is the responsibility of the complainant It is his duty to bring the witnesses, and to lead evidence and bringing all the materials before the court. The statutory procedure prescribed for the complaint case is such that if the complainant is not present, then the complaint filed by him can even be dismissed in default and if the accused appeared then he be either discharged or acquitted as the case may be Thus it is responsibility of complainant to prosecute the complaint and the court cannot compel him to launch such a prosecution. Under the Cr.P.C. courts cannot compel any person to start the litigation. If the aggrieved person does not want to start litigation, the court cannot say that he must litigate.


  1. The guidelines exist but Magistrate do not follow .CONTEMPT TO above order


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nehru खानदान की सच्चाई , Basic Knowledge of Nehru Family!

  Truth Of Nehru Surname  मोतीलाल नेहरू की 5 पत्नियाँ थीं। (1) स्वरूप रानी (2) थुसु रहमान बाई (3) मंजुरी देवी (4) एक ईरानी महिला (5) एक कश्मीरी महिला नंबर 1- स्वरूप रानी और नंबर 3- मंजुरि देवी को लेकर कोई समस्या नहीं है। दूसरी पत्नी थुसू रहमान बाई के पहले पति मुबारक अली थे। मोतीलाल की नौकरी, मुबारक अली के पास थी। मुबारक की आकस्मिक मृत्यु के कारण मोतीलाल थुसु रहमान बाई से निकाह कर लिये और परोक्ष रूप से पूरी संपत्ति के मालिक बन गये। थुसु रहमान बाई को मुबारक अली से 2 बच्चे पहले से ही मौजूद थे- (1) शाहिद हुसैन (2) जवाहरलाल, मोतीलाल द्वारा इन दोनों बच्चों शाहिद हुसैन और जवाहरलाल को थुसु रहमान बाई से निकाह करने की वजह से अपना बेटा कह दिया गया। प्रासंगिक उल्लेख:- जवाहरलाल की माँ थुसू रहमान बाई थी, लेकिन उनके पिता मुबारक अली ही थे। तदनुसार थुसू रहमान बाई से निकाह करने की वजह से मोतीलाल, जवाहरलाल नेहरू के पालक पिता थे। मोतीलाल की चौथी पत्नी एक ईरानी महिला थी, जिसे मुहम्मद अली जिन्ना नामक एक बेटा था मोतीलाल की 5 नंबर वाली पत्नी एक कश्मीरी महिला थी, यह मोतीलाल नेहरु की नौकरानी थी। इसको शेख अब्दुल

JUDGE पर Advocate को छेड़ने की FIR दर्ज़...

  जानबूझ कर ADJ ने महिला एडवोकेट के कंधे मे हाथ रखा हाईकोर्ट पहुंचा मामला: वकील से छेड़छाड़ के आरोप में अतिरिक्त जिला एवं सत्र न्यायाधीश पर केस दर्ज शिकायत के आधार पर भिवानी महिला थाना पुलिस ने निलंबित ADJ और उसके साथी वकील के खिलाफ IPC की धारा 354A, 509, 34 और 67 IT ACT के तहत केस दर्ज कर लिया है. Bhiwani:हाईकोर्ट ने इस मामले में जांच आरंभ की और सीसीटीवी फुटेज की प्रति आरोपी जज को सौंपी। महिला वकील ने कहा कि यह सीसीटीवी फुटेज उस घटना का गोपनीय सबूत था लेकिन आरोपी जज ने उसकी छवि खराब करने के लिए इसे लीक कर दिया। महिला वकील से छेड़छाड़ के आरोप में अतिरिक्त जिला एवं सत्र न्यायाधीश (एडीजे) पर भिवानी पुलिस ने मुकदमा दर्ज किया है। महिला वकील की शिकायत को सेशन जज ने सीसीटीवी फुटेज के साथ हाईकोर्ट भेजा था। पंजाब-हरियाणा हाईकोर्ट ने जज को 31 अगस्त को निलंबित कर दिया था और जांच जारी है। महिला वकील ने शिकायत दी थी कि 12 अगस्त को जब वह कोर्ट परिसर में थी तो अतिरिक्त जिला एवं सत्र न्यायाधीश सामने थे। विश करने पर जज ने नाम पूछा और अपना हाथ उसके कंधे पर रख दिया। आपत्तिजनक व्यवहार किया। विरोध करने पर

Police Station में videography अपराध नही: High Court, NO BAN IN VIDEO SHOOTING INSIDE POLICE STATION

MAKING VIDEO OF DISCUSSION IS NOT OFFENCE.POLICE STATION DOES NOT COME UNDER PROHIBITED AREA FOR VIDEO SHOOTING . PEOPLE SHOULD NOT MAKE VIDEO OF ARMS ROOM .  Nagpur: पुलिस थाने में कार्रवाई के दौरान अपने मोबाइल पर वीडियो बनाने वाले वर्धा निवासी एक व्यक्ति को बॉम्बे हाईकोर्ट की नागपुर खंडपीठ ने दोषमुक्त किया है। यह है पूरा मामला:  याचिकाकर्ता रवींद्र उपाध्याय का अपने ही क्षेत्र के एक निवासी के साथ कृषि भूमि को लेकर विवाद चल रहा था। याचिकाकर्ता पर आरोप था कि, उन्होंने पुलिस स्टेशन में इसी कार्रवाई के दौरान चुपके से वीडियो रिकॉर्डिंग कर ली। ऐसे में पुलिस ने उनके खिलाफ ऑफिशियल सीक्रेट्स एक्ट 1923 की धारा 3 के तहत मामला दर्ज कर लिया। इस मामले में पुलिस ने जांच पूरी करके याचिकाकर्ता के खिलाफ चार्जशीट दायर कर दी। एफआईआर और चार्जशीट खारिज करने के लिए याचिकाकर्ता ने हाईकोर्ट की शरण ली थी। याचिकाकर्ता पर एफआईआर खारिज करते वक्त हाईकोर्ट ने कहा कि, ऑफिशियल सीक्रेट्स एक्ट की धारा 3 के तहत मामला तब दर्ज हो सकता है, जब किसी व्यक्ति ने प्रतिबंधित स्थान की तस्वीरें या चित्र निकालकर  देश के दुश्मन को फ

Contempt Filed Against Bombay High Court Ex Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog At Supreme Court

  Delhi: Civil Contempt petition filed against Ex CJ Bombay High Court Shri Pradeep Nandrajog for violating Hon'ble Supreme Court constitution bench order  in Anita Kushwaha vs. Pushap Sudan, ( (2016) 8 SCC 509 ) has held that access of justice is an integral part of the guarantee contained in  Article 21  and  14  of the Constitution of India which guarantees equality before law and equal protection of law to not only citizens but non-citizens also.  In Civil PIL 159/2016 Sapan Shrivastava VS HRD Ministry the petitioner challenged the validity of ICSE/ISC Board . In Earlier hearing court directed State to file reply but inspite of final warning the State did not filed replied. HRD in RTI reply said that it does not recognise CISCE operated ICSE/ISC board.  In final order the court of Shri Pradeep Nandrajog and Smt Bharti Dangre passed the order and  admitted the submission of CISCE that ICSE /ISC board is recognised from all the states and UT. On 5th Sept 2019 Court put the cost o

Breaking News : Indemnity to be given by empanelled valuer with Canara Bank......

  The Public Sector Bank #Canara bank having head office at Bangalore Listed in #NSE and #BSE with #Scrip Code – regulated by #RBI has published #RFP for #Empanelment of #valuer to disinvest its subsidiary with a RFP title # EMPANELMENT OF QUALIFIED #VALUATION #EXPERT FOR VALUATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DIVESTMENT / WINDING UP OF CANARA BANK’S OVERSEAS SUBSIDIARY, #CANARA BANK (TANZANIA) LIMITED. CANARA BANK, is a body Corporate and a premier Public Sector Bank established in the Year 1906 and nationalized under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Head office at 112, J C Road, Bengaluru – 560 002 and among others, is having International Operations Wing (IO Wing) at 2nd Floor, 2nd Cross, Y Ramachandra Road, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru - 560 009. The Bank is having a Total Business – Rs. 18,27,556 Cr. with Gross Advances –Rs.7,41,147 Cr. and Gross Deposits – Rs.10,86,409 Cr. as on 31.03.2022. The grievance is filed against Canara Bank a public

Court Ordered FIR Against Inspector For Filing False Chargesheet In Court

  ACCUSED FILED CRPC 156 COMPLAINT FOR FALSE REPORT UNDER CRPC 173. अंबेडकरनगर के SI पर FIR:3 साल पहले केस में विवेचना के दौरान गलत रिपोर्ट लगाई, कोर्ट ने दिया कार्रवाई का आदेश 3 साल पहले केस में विवेचना के दौरान गलत रिपोर्ट लगाई, कोर्ट ने दिया कार्रवाई का आदेश|अम्बेडकरनगर, Ambedkarnagar  ये फोटो आरोपी SI रमेश शुक्ल की है। कोर्ट ने उन पर कार्रवाई का आदेश दिया है। अंबेडकरनगर के सम्मनपुर थाने में तैनात रहे दरोगा रमेश चंद्र शुक्ल के खिलाफ कोर्ट ने केस दर्ज कर विवेचना का आदेश दिया है। उन पर आरोप है कि आरोपी को बचाने के लिए नियमों के खिलाफ काम किया है। वर्तमान समय में आरोपी एसआई जिले के अहिरौली थाने में तैनात है। सम्मनपुर थाना इलाके के आलमपुर गोमून गांव निवासी गंगाराम ने घटना के सम्बंध में 25 जुलाई 2019 को धारा 352, 504, 506 और 436 के तहत केस दर्ज कराया था। इसकी विवेचना उप निरीक्षक रमेश चंद्र शुक्ला द्वारा किया गया। आरोप है कि विवेचना के दौरान बिना साक्ष्य जुटाए झूठा मुकदमा दिखाकर एसआई ने फाइनल रिपोर्ट लगा दिया गया। मामले में पीड़ित गंगाराम ने इसकी शिकायत एसपी से कर न्याय की गुहार लगाया, लेक

जज मजिस्ट्रेट कैसे बेईमानी करते है , कैसे इससे बचे!

  कई लोग कोर्ट जाते है और हार कर चले आते है। ऑर्डर पूंछने पर एक लाइन का आर्डर दिखा देते है जिसमे लिखा होता है कि petitioner या respondent ने कुछ नही कहा। बाहर आकर शिकायत करते है की जज ने उसकी points को माना ही नही और केस हार गया। आजकल जज भी dishonest हो गए है और सुप्रीम court की guidelines की अनुसार काम नही करते और निर्णय एक पक्ष की बात सुनकर कर देते है। सब हारे हुए लोग कहते है की उसके points order में नही add किए। ऐसा जज इसलिए करता है की अगर points add कर देगे तो निर्णय उलट जाएगा। हर पक्ष को अपनी सब बाते ऑर्डर में add करवाना चाहिए । अगर points नही add हुए तो यही समझा जाएगा की आपकी पास कोई facts या points नही थे और आप कोर्ट में मौन रहे।  अगर इस कारण आप कोर्ट में कोई केस हार गए है तो फिर से केस active करे और विजय प्राप्त करें क्योंकि केस के बाद आप नहीं ऑर्डर बोलता है।  आर्डर ठीक करने की कोई टाइमर लिमिट नही है। यह अनाचार आपको दिल्ली तक मिलेगा क्योंकि कोई भी detail और reasoned ऑर्डर नही पास करना चाहता। जज को गलती करने का अधिकार नही है और जज की गलती पर state हर्जाना देगा। वैसे कुछ जज नियम

Rs 1.69 Cr Expense Done For VC at Bombay High Court But No VIDEO CONFERENCE Link For Public

 ONLY JUSTICE GS PATEL PUBLISHING VC LINK IN CAUSELIST जनता का पैसा बर्बाद हो रहा है. कोई नहीं चाहता की जनता का पैसा और समय बचे।  ADVOCATES CANNOT ATTEND MULTIPLE COURTS DUE TO NO VC OPTION,PARTY IN PERSONS ALSO SUFFERING  सेवा की जगह तानाशाही कर रहे है JUDGES , बिना गद्दी के राजा है , सुप्रीम कोर्ट से कुछ नहीं सीखना चाहते .... At Delhi High Court VC link s are available at Causlist, at SC it is sent by Email. At MP HC IT department provide it on request . RTI Information 1. VC Guidelines or any for Bombay High Court with copy  2. Online Mentioning Email ID  before Hon\'ble Courts guidelines copy. 3. Total Amount of Expense Done for VC facility  at High Court between Jan 2020 to Dec 2022 by State or any. THIS COST FOR VIDEO CONFERENCING IS INCLUDING ALL BENCHES OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT Public Information Officer Bombay High Court: Shri Pankaj A. Patki 2665857 2662488 Presiding Officer 8208405880(M) __ __________________

Supreme Court Clerks Are Deciding Maintainability of Petition Not Judge

  CORRUPTION IN SUPREME COURT REGISTRY , NOT GIVING DIARY NUMBER AND REJECTING PETITION WITHOUT QUOTING APPROPRIATE SECTION OF SCR 2013. AS PER SC ORDER ONLY JUDGE CAN DECIDE MAINTAINABILITY OF PETITION Supreme Court of India P. Surendran vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 March, 2019 10. Therefore, we hold that the High Court Registry could not have exercised such judicial power to answer the maintainability of the petition, when the same was in the realm of the Court. As the power of judicial function cannot be delegated to the Registry, we cannot sustain the order, rejecting the numbering/registration of the Petition, by the Madras High Court Registry. Accordingly, the Madras High Court Registry is directed to number the petition and place it before an appropriate bench. Dear Mr. MANUBHAI HARGOVANDAS PATEL  I am hereby directed to inform you that the document uploaded by you vide Ref. id No. 3754/2023 in view of prayers (a) and (b) the Writ

Supreme Court VC Video Conferencing Link

  ALL DAYS THIS LINKS ARE WORKING....NO CHANGES Seen. PLZ DONT MISUSE IT Video conferencing link common for all days. S.NO. COURT NO. COURT LINKS 1. Court No. 1 2. Court No. 2 3. Court No. 3 4. Court No. 4 5. Court No. 5 6. Court No. 6 7. Court No. 7 8. Court No. 8 9. Court No. 9          9A Court no.10   10. Court No. 11 11. Court No. 12 12. Court No. 13 13. Court No. 14