This article has been written by Arjun Kumar from Aligarh Muslim University Malappuram, Kerala

Table of Contents

Introduction

The power vested in a Magistrate to order a police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the authority to direct an investigation under Section 202(1) of CrPC serve distinct purposes within the criminal justice system.Section 156(3) of CrPC empowers a Magistrate to order a police investigation into a cognizable offense upon receiving a complaint. This provision grants the Magistrate the authority to direct a police officer to initiate an investigation without requiring the filing of a First Information Report (FIR).

The primary objective is to ensure a prompt and impartial inquiry into alleged criminal activities.On the other hand, Section 202(1) of CrPC provides the Magistrate with the discretion to conduct an inquiry or direct an investigation before proceeding with the trial. This section comes into play when a Magistrate receives a complaint of an offense triable exclusively by a Court of Session or upon a police report. Unlike Section 156(3), Section 202(1) allows the Magistrate to initiate an inquiry on their own accord, even in the absence of a formal complaint.

Meaning of Section 156(3)

Section 156(3) talks about the power of a magistrate to order a police investigation.

Further Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers a Magistrate to order a police investigation into a cognizable offense. This provision grants the Magistrate the authority to direct the police to conduct an inquiry if the complainant approaches the court seeking such an order.

The Magistrate may exercise this discretion based on the complaint’s merit, ensuring that a fair and impartial investigation takes place.The section plays a crucial role in the criminal justice system by facilitating prompt and effective actions against offenses. It acts as a check and balance, allowing judicial intervention to ensure that investigations are carried out when necessary, safeguarding the interests of justice. The provision emphasizes the collaborative role of the judiciary and law enforcement in upholding the rule of law and ensuring a thorough examination of alleged criminal activities.

It represents a procedural mechanism designed to maintain a balance between individual rights and societal interests in the pursuit of justice.

Essential Ingredients of the Section 156(3)

The filing of a complaint or information, the Magistrate being satisfied that an offense is made out, and the need for a police investigation. The complainant’s role is crucial, as they must convince the Magistrate of the alleged offense’s validity. The Magistrate’s satisfaction is a subjective assessment based on the material before them. Once satisfied, the Magistrate issues directions to the police for investigation.
This section doesn’t compel the Magistrate to issue such an order; it’s a discretionary power. The objective is to ensure a fair inquiry and prevent the misuse of legal processes. The provision serves as a bridge between private complaints and police action, balancing individual rights and the state’s duty to investigate potential criminal activities.
Overall, Section 156(3) plays a pivotal role in facilitating effective law enforcement while safeguarding individual rights in the criminal justice system.

When does Section 156(3) Come into play

In Mohd Yousuf v. Smt. Afaq Jahan and Anr^{^[1]} The Supreme Court stated that any judicial magistrate might order an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code before taking notice of the offense. If he does, he is not allowed to force the complainant to take an oath because he was unaware of any wrongdoing.

The magistrate can order the police to file an FIR to enable them to begin an investigation. It is not against the law to do this. After all, Section 154 of the Code states that filing an FIR requires entering the essential details about the commission of the cognizable offense in a book maintained by the person in charge of the police station.

It is the responsibility of the officer in charge of the police station to report the FIR regarding the cognizable offense disclosed by the complaint even if a magistrate does not expressly direct an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code that an FIR should be registered because that police officer could only take further steps considered in Chapter XII of the Code after that.

In various case laws, the application of Section 156(3) has been elucidated. The landmark case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P.^{^[2]}

In this case it was Emphasized that an FIR should be registered in all cognizable offenses, and an investigation must commence promptly. However, the Supreme Court acknowledged that there might be exceptional circumstances where preliminary inquiry is permissible, but it should not be a routine practice.

In the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.^{^[3]}

The court reiterated that the Magistrate can direct police investigation under Section 156(3) even if a complaint is filed before them. The discretion, however, should be exercised judiciously, ensuring that the ends of justice are met.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court, in the case of Tapan Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar^{^[4]}

In this case it was highlighted that the Magistrate must apply their mind to the contents of the complaint and the seriousness of the allegations before invoking Section 156(3). It should not be a mechanical order but based on a proper application of judicial mind.

Judicial Pronouncement Related to the Section 156(3)

Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P.^{^[5]}

Justice Dr VRK Krupa Sagar observed that the charge sheet as it stands now makes serious allegations of misappropriation of funds such as lease amounts received, and land acquisition compensation received but not accounted for which constitute cognizable offenses. There are many facts that are alleged and denied which necessitates a trial to find out the truth.

Furthermore, it was observed that the ruling in Priyanka Srivastava was not applicable as there is no misuse of criminal justice machinery in the present case.

M/s Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. The State of Maharashtra^{^[6]}

In this case it was held that the order of the Magistrate in forwarding a complaint to the police under Section 156(3) does not really require any elaboration except a direction, it was held.

In these circumstances, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed and the criminal petition is dismissed.

Meaning of Section 202(1)

(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offense of which he is authorized to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding: Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made,–

(a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offense complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or

(b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200.

Essential ingredients of the Section 202(1)

When does Section 202 (1) Come into play

Section 202 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) deals with the postponement of the issue of process by a Magistrate after taking cognizance of a complaint. The purpose of this provision is to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Magistrate may either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation by a police officer or any other person as he thinks fit Some of the case laws that illustrate the application of Section 202 (1) CrPC are:

In Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonkar and Anr^{^[7]}

The Supreme Court held that the Magistrate has the discretion to postpone the issue of process and direct an investigation under Section 202 (1) CrPC even if the complaint is supported by an affidavit.

In Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose^{^[8]}

The Supreme Court held that the Magistrate is not bound to accept the police report as conclusive and can make his own inquiry under Section 202 (1) CrPC before the issuing process.

In KM Mathew v. State of Kerala^{^[9]}

The Supreme Court held that the Magistrate can direct an investigation under Section 202 (1) CrPC even if the offense is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years.

Difference between Section 156(3) and Section 202(1) of the CRPC

The difference between the section 156(3) and Section 202(1) of the CRPC is as follows:

Section 156(3) falls in Chapter XII of the CRPC, which deals with the power of a Magistrate to order a police investigation in case of cognizable offenses, before taking cognizance of the offense under Section 190 The Magistrate can direct the police to register an FIR and start the investigation from scratch regarding the entire matter

Section 202(1) falls in Chapter XV of the CRPC, which deals with the power of a Magistrate to direct an inquiry or investigation by a police officer, after taking cognizance of the offense on a complaint under Section 200. The Magistrate can direct the police to conduct a specific and limited inquiry or investigation to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint

Section 156(3) empowers a Magistrate to order a police investigation into a cognizable offense upon receiving a complaint. This provision allows the Magistrate to direct the police to conduct an inquiry and submit a report, enabling the initiation of criminal proceedings.

In contrast, Section 202(1) allows a Magistrate to postpone the issuance of process against the accused and instead direct a police investigation or inquiry. This is typically done when the complaint lacks sufficient evidence to proceed with a trial immediately. The Magistrate may order an investigation to gather additional evidence before deciding whether to issue summons or warrants.

In this case the supreme court observed the difference between the Section 156(3) and the section 202 (1) of the CrPC.

Kailash Vijayvargiya v Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri and Ors.^{^[10]}

The Supreme Court expounded that when a private complaint is filed, the Magistrate has the discretion to either take cognizance under Section 190 or direct a police investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC.

If the Magistrate opts not to proceed under Section 156(3), the Magistrate cannot simply dismiss the complaint but should consider alternative procedures such as examining the complainant on oath and conducting further investigation under Section 202.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while both Section 156(3) and Section 202(1) empower magistrates to order investigations, they serve different purposes. Section 156(3) is post-cognizance, focusing on cases where an investigation is necessary after a complaint is filed, whereas Section 202(1) is pre-cognizance, allowing for a preliminary inquiry before deciding whether to take cognizance of an offense. These provisions collectively provide magistrates with a flexible approach to ensure a fair and just legal process.

Reference

Universal Criminal Manual (LexisNexis) Saurabh Printers Pvt. Ltd. Greater Noida U.P.
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure 23rd Edition 2020.
www. Indiankanoon. Org (Last Visited on 18 December).