Introduction:

In Ranjit Singh Bath & Anr. v. Union Territory Chandigarh & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. 4313 of 2024, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 329], the Supreme Court reiterated the mandatory procedural requirement that a complainant must first exhaust the remedies available under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before seeking a Magistrate’s direction under Section 156(3) for FIR registration and investigation. A bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan quashed the FIR registered under Sections 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that the complainant had failed to follow the prescribed legal process. The Court criticized the Judicial Magistrate and the Punjab and Haryana High Court for disregarding the binding precedent set in Priyanka Srivastava and Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 287, which mandates that a complainant must make specific averments regarding compliance with Section 154 before invoking Section 156(3). The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards to prevent the misuse of the criminal justice system.

Arguments:

The appellants’ counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Priyanka Srivastava and Babu Venkatesh & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., emphasizing that the complainant had not exhausted the remedies under Section 154 before approaching the Magistrate. They argued that the complainant’s failure to lodge the complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of a police station under Section 154(1) and escalate the matter to the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) rendered the invocation of Section 156(3) improper. The counsel contended that applications under Section 156(3) must be accompanied by an affidavit, ensuring that complainants take responsibility for their allegations. It was further submitted that the Magistrate’s order was passed without verifying whether the procedural preconditions were met, leading to an abuse of process. On the other hand, the complainant’s counsel argued that while there was no explicit averment of compliance with Section 154, a written complaint had been submitted to the Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh, and later marked to the Economic Offences Wing for inquiry. They maintained that this should suffice as substantial compliance with Section 154(3). However, the complainant’s counsel conceded that there was no clear reference to the mandatory procedural steps in the application before the Magistrate.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal, held that both the Magistrate and the Punjab and Haryana High Court had ignored the well-established principles laid down in Priyanka Srivastava. The bench reiterated that before invoking Section 156(3), the complainant must exhaust the remedies under Section 154(1) and (3) and must explicitly state so in the complaint along with supporting documents. The Court observed that the absence of such averments in the complaint made the Magistrate’s order legally unsustainable. It also noted that the complainant’s approach to the Inspector General of Police did not satisfy the requirements of Section 154(3), as there was no evidence that the Superintendent of Police was formally approached and that his decision was awaited before moving the Magistrate. Quashing the orders of the Magistrate and the High Court, the Court reinforced the necessity of adhering to procedural safeguards to prevent frivolous and premature criminal proceedings. The judgment serves as a crucial precedent in ensuring that criminal law is not set in motion without first exhausting available remedies within the statutory framework.