This short case analysis has been written by Ayush Chandra, founder of LegalOnus.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Renu Sharma and another
Vs
Union Territory of J&K and another
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
Introduction
A crucial legal issue has emerged regarding the extent of a Magistrate’s powers under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), particularly in directing the registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after already taking cognizance of an offense under Section 200 Cr.P.C. This case highlights the fundamental distinction between pre-cognizance and post-cognizance powers and the legal consequences of a Magistrate exceeding his jurisdiction.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose when the complainant (respondent No.2) filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the petitioners, alleging the commission of offenses under Sections 453, 454, 456, 457, 379, 380 read with 120-B IPC.
The complainant claimed that he had been residing in a rented flat in Kamdhenu Homz, Jammu since 2015. Upon returning from his native place in March 2022, he alleged that his landlord had unlawfully entered the premises, changed the locks, and committed house trespass, housebreaking, and theft. Based on these allegations, he sought police investigation and FIR registration.
Magistrate’s Inquiry and Direction for FIR Registration
It is noted that the Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the offenses by recording the preliminary statement of the complainant on oath under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and thereafter directed the SSP, Jammu to conduct an inquiry to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint.
Upon receiving the complaint, the Magistrate ordered an inquiry by SSP Jammu, with the Dy.SP conducting a preliminary investigation. The report, submitted on March 28, 2022, revealed that:
- The tenant had defaulted on rent payments.
- The landlord had locked the premises without following due legal process.
Despite these findings, the Magistrate directed the SHO of Bakshi Nagar Police Station to register an FIR on March 29, 2022 and further instructed the SSP to appoint a gazetted officer to investigate the matter.
Legal Issue for Determination
The core legal question in this case is:
Can a Magistrate order FIR registration under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after taking cognizance of an offense under Section 200 Cr.P.C.?
This question requires an analysis of the pre-cognizance and post-cognizance powers of the Magistrate under Cr.P.C.
Legal Provisions and Their Interpretation
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Power to Order Investigation at Pre-Cognizance Stage
“Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order an investigation by a police officer as provided under section 156(1).”
- Section 156(3) falls under Chapter XII of Cr.P.C., which deals with pre-cognizance procedures.
- A Magistrate has the authority to direct police to register an FIR and investigate if the complaint discloses a cognizable offense.
- Importantly, Section 156(3) does not require the Magistrate to record the complainant’s preliminary statement before directing FIR registration, as this power is exercised at the pre-cognizance stage.
Section 200 Cr.P.C. – Post-Cognizance Examination of Complainant
“A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offense on a complaint shall examine the complainant and the witnesses on oath and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing.”
- Once a Magistrate records the complainant’s statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., it means cognizance of the offense has been taken.
- At this stage, the Magistrate is bound to follow the procedure under Chapter XV, including an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. if needed.
- After taking cognizance, the Magistrate cannot revert to ordering an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Court’s distinction Between Section 156(3) and Section 200 Cr.P.C.
- Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is exercised at the pre-cognizance stage.
- Section 200 Cr.P.C. marks the post-cognizance stage.
- Once cognizance is taken, the Magistrate must proceed with the procedure under Chapter XV and cannot order FIR registration.
- If a Magistrate examines the complainant under Section 200 and then directs an FIR under Section 156(3), such an order is legally unsustainable.
Conclusion: FIR Registration is Unsustainable and Quashed
As per Cr.P.C., the learned trial Magistrate does not have the authority to direct the police to register an FIR after receiving the inquiry report from the police, once cognizance has been taken under Section 200.
It is important to note that if the Magistrate had ordered the registration of the FIR before recording the complainant’s statement on oath under Section 200, his order would have been legally sustainable. However, in this case, since he first took cognizance under Section 200, obtained the police inquiry report, and then ordered FIR registration, such an order is not permissible under the law.
However, the Magistrate had already taken cognizance under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the subsequent order to register an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is legally flawed and beyond jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways:
- Once a Magistrate takes cognizance under Section 200, reverting to Section 156(3) is impermissible.
- The order directing FIR registration stands quashed as it violates the settled principles of Cr.P.C.
- This case reaffirms the need for Magistrates to adhere to the procedural distinction between pre-cognizance and post-cognizance powers.
Reference
- Judgment of J&K High Court in the case Renu Sharma and another Vs Union Territory of J&K and another.