Can magistrate direct investigation under section 156(3) after taking cognisance

Can an order be passed to register FIR under section 156 if the case was filed under CRPC 200? I filed a complaint under section 200 of the code after my procedure but later on and another victim moved an application under section 156(3) CrPC for the direction of the investigation. The judicial magistrate had directed the police officer to investigate and report the matter on next hearing. The next hearing of the case is 6 August 2019. Upon receiving the order of the magistrate, the investigating officer initiated another investigation. I think another victim has filed that application with…

Can an order be passed to register FIR under section 156 if the case was filed under CRPC 200? I filed a complaint under section 200 of the code after my procedure but later on and another victim moved an application under section 156(3) CrPC for the direction of the investigation. The judicial magistrate had directed the police officer to investigate and report the matter on next hearing.

The next hearing of the case is 6 August 2019. Upon receiving the order of the magistrate, the investigating officer initiated another investigation. I think another victim has filed that application with the motive to delay the investigation and cause irreparable loss to me. Is there any option to take appropriate action against the order of the magistrate?

Sub-section 3 of section 156 crpc empowers the judicial magistrate to direct the police officer to conduct an investigation. When the magistrate orders under section 156(3) crpc, he does so without taking cognisance of the offence. Whereas, under section 200 of the code of criminal procedure, the magistrate passes an order after taking cognisance of the case. Cognisance makes a substantial difference between the order of the magistrate passed under section 156(3) and section 200 CrPC. The cognisance has a significant effect because it infers that the court has applied its mind and begins the trial.

Once the magistrate takes cognisance, he cannot revert one step and disturb the investigation. It is the rule that there should be one investigation in one incident. Therefore, the order of a fresh investigation in the same matter is unacceptable.

In this situation, you should file a revision before the session judge under section 397 of the code of criminal procedure. It is evident in the current scenario to remove the impediment of the orders passed by the magistrate. The order of the second investigation will also cause adverse impact upon the accused.

The magistrate while takes cognisance under section 200 CRPC he satisfies that the ingredients of the offence exist. If he is doubtful regarding the commission of a crime, then he can pass an order under section 202 CRPC instead of invoking section 156(3) CRPC. Section 202 CrPC empowers the magistrate to order a preliminary investigation by a police officer. When the finding of preliminary investigation shows that no offence is made out, then the magistrate can reject the complaint.

However, the magistrate has adequate power under section 202 CRPC then no need to order a fresh investigation under section 156(3). In CREF Finance Ltd. v. Shree Shanthi Homes (P) Ltd. [(2005) 7 SCC 467 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1697] the supreme court held that after taking cognisance and examining the complainant on oath, the court may come to the conclusion that no case is made out for issuance of process and it may reject the complaint. It may also be that having considered the complaint, the court may consider it appropriate to send the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Cognisance

When the magistrate issues summon or warrant (process) against the accused, then it said that he takes the cognisance. Therefore, after issuing the process under section 204 crpc, he cannot direct the police officer under section 156(3) CRPC. When the magistrate doubts about the commission of offence thereupon without taking cognisance, he can pass an order under section 156(3) CRPC.

Therefore, it is clear that after taking cognisance Magistrate cannot pass an order under section 156(3). When he does not take cognisance consequently, he has the liberty to direct the police officer under section 156(3) to conduct the investigation.

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Advocate

Advocate Shivendra, practicing law since 2005, specializes in criminal and matrimonial cases, extensive litigatin experience before the High Court, Sessions court & Family Court. He established kanoonirai.com in 2014 to provide dependable and pragmatic legal support. Over the years, he has successfully assisted thousands of clients, making the platform a trusted resource for criminal and matrimonial dispute resolution in India.

Related Matters

क्या चेक बाउंस का केस मियाद समाप्त होने के बाद भी दाखिल हो सकता है

Negotiable Instruments Act के अंतर्गत, वैधानिक अवधि समाप्त होने के बाद भी चेक बाउंस का मामला दायर किया जा सकता है। यदि शिकायतकर्ता देरी का उचित कारण प्रस्तुत करता है, तो न्यायालय विलंब को क्षमा कर शिकायत स्वीकार कर सकता है। नोटिस के बाद निर्धारित समय में भुगतान न होने पर कार्यवाही प्रारंभ की जा सकती है।

Cancellation of bail when accused tempering with witness

Seeking the cancellation of bail is possible when an accused person tampers with witnesses or influences a trial. This guide explains legal grounds for such actions, focusing on mandatory procedures under Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act and post-bail threats. Learn how victims can approach higher courts to ensure a fair trial and protect their rights.

Evidence of interested witness is admissible in criminal proceedings

In criminal law, the testimony of a related witness cannot be discarded solely due to their relationship with the victim. This legal overview clarifies the distinction between related and interested witnesses, citing key Supreme Court rulings. It explains how natural witnesses provide admissible evidence that reliably forms the basis for a conviction, even without independent corroboration.

SDM cannot attach property under section 146 crpc when civil suit is pending

A Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot legally attach property under Section 146 of the CrPC if a civil suit regarding the same property is already pending. This guide explains why such orders lack jurisdiction and outlines the proper legal remedy, including filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC to the High Court based on established Supreme Court precedents.

Produce Pendrive as Evidence: Legal Process Explained

Legal experts clarify that digital evidence, such as a pen drive, can be produced even at an advanced stage of a criminal trial under Section 294 of the CrPC. If a trial court rejects such material evidence based on timing, the defendant may challenge the order in the High Court to ensure a fair trial and just adjudication.