Magistrate Cannot Direct FIR Registration Under Section 156(3) After Recording Complainant’s Statement Under Section 200: J&K High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has clarified that once a complainant’s statement is recorded under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., a magistrate cannot subsequently issue directions for FIR registration under Section 156(3). This decision reinforces the distinct procedural boundaries between the pre-cognizance and post-cognizance stages of complaint handling by a magistrate.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal, citing the case of M/S Sas Infratech Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Telangana, emphasized, “When the Magistrate, in the exercise of his judicial discretion, directs investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offense. It is only when the Magistrate, after applying his mind, prefers to follow the procedure under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. by resorting to Sections 200, he can be said to have taken cognizance of the offense.”
The case in question involved a complaint filed by Somi Devi against Vinod Kumar, alleging offenses under Sections 336 and 304-A IPC. The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Kishtwar, upon receiving the complaint, directed the SHO to register an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. This order was subsequently challenged by Kumar.
Represented by Mr. Kousal Parihar, Kumar argued that the CJM’s order was improper once the complainant’s statement had been recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., as cognizance of the offense had already been taken, rendering the procedure under Section 156(3) inapplicable. Respondent’s counsel, Mr. Siddhant Gupta, conceded this point.
Justice Oswal, after reviewing the case, agreed with Kumar’s contentions. He highlighted that directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are only permissible at a pre-cognizance stage. Since the CJM had already recorded the complainant’s statement, the subsequent direction to register an FIR was invalid.
Consequently, the High Court quashed the CJM Kishtwar’s order and the FIR, directing the CJM to proceed with the complaint in accordance with the law. The Court also emphasized that the accused has no right to a hearing before the issuance of process.
Case Title: Vinod Kumar vs. Somi Devi
