Introduction:

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court addressed the issue of whether a court in its revisional jurisdiction can quash an FIR registered following a magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The full bench, comprising Justice Revati Mohite-Dere, Justice NJ Jamadar, and Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh, provided clarity on the matter in the case of Arun P. Gidh v. Chandraprakash Singh and Ors. The case involved a complaint filed against municipal commissioners and officers of the Kalyan-Dombivali Municipal Corporation (KDMC) regarding alleged irregularities in the redevelopment of Manek Colony.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner argued that the revisional court should have the power to quash an FIR if it sets aside the magistrate’s order directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the power to quash investigations or prosecutions lies within the realm of writ jurisdiction under the Constitution or inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, rather than in the revisional jurisdiction.

Court’s Judgement:

The Bombay High Court emphasized that the power to quash FIRs or prosecutions is not within the purview of the revisional court but lies within the domain of writ jurisdiction or inherent powers. It clarified that setting aside a magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) does not automatically nullify subsequent actions, such as FIR registration and investigations. The court outlined scenarios where the revisional court may intervene, depending on whether the FIR has been registered or not, and the nature of any jurisdictional errors in the magistrate’s order. Ultimately, the court held that the revisional court’s order does not automatically quash the resultant prosecution, and such matters should be dealt with in accordance with writ or inherent jurisdiction.