Supreme Court: Rejection Under Section 156(3) CrPC Doesn't Bar Fresh FIR

• The Supreme Court has ruled that rejection of a Section 156(3) application does not bar registration of a fresh FIR if new information discloses a cognizable offence.
• The court emphasized that an order under Section 156(3) is not passed after adjudicating the merits of allegations, but rather regulates the commencement of investigation.
• The decision highlights the importance of continuing to investigate and gather evidence in criminal cases, even after an initial rejection.

An order under Section 156(3), therefore, is confined to directing investigation. The jurisdiction under Section 156(3) is merely to set the investigative machinery under Chapter XII in motion.

The Supreme Court has clarified that rejection of an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not bar registration of a subsequent FIR if fresh information discloses a cognizable offence. This ruling has significant implications for lawyers and their clients who deal with cases involving rejected Section 156(3) applications. The court's decision means that even if an initial application is turned down, the police can still register a new FIR based on new evidence. This development underscores the importance of continuing to investigate and gather evidence in criminal cases, even after an initial rejection.

Section 156(3) empowers judicial magistrates to order police registration of FIRs and investigations when local stations refuse to act on complaints about cognizable offences. This provision is intended to ensure that the police exercise their statutory power of investigation, particularly in cases where they fail or refuse to discharge their duty. The court's ruling highlights the distinction between Section 156(3) and other provisions of the CrPC, such as Section 175(3), which deals with similar issues under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). By emphasizing that rejection of a Section 156(3) application does not operate as res judicata, the court has clarified the scope and limitations of this provision.

The Supreme Court's ruling has important practical implications for lawyers who advise clients on cases involving rejected Section 156(3) applications. The decision means that lawyers should continue to investigate and gather new evidence, even after an initial rejection. This approach can help ensure that the police register a fresh FIR based on new information, which may disclose a cognizable offence. By being aware of this development, lawyers can better advise their clients and navigate the complexities of Section 156(3) applications.

Lawyers should note that the Supreme Court's ruling means that a rejected Section 156(3) application does not bar the registration of a fresh FIR if new information discloses a cognizable offence, and they should advise clients to be aware of this development when dealing with similar cases.

Source: Original reporting via Supreme Court Judgments