2020 (4) TMI 830 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal on FIR Registration, Emphasizes Procedural Compliance

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's direction for FIR registration and investigation. The Court emphasized the ... Power of Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC to order investigation and direct registration of FIR - High Court writ not a substitute for remedy under Section 156(3) CrPC - Magistrate's power to monitor investigation - Locus standi of complainant to file criminal complaint - Effect of interim judicial stay on registration and investigationPower of Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC to order investigation and direct registration of FIR - High Court writ not a substitute for remedy under Section 156(3) CrPC - Magistrate's power to monitor investigation - Whether the High Court could direct registration of an FIR and order investigation when the statutory remedy under Section 156(3) CrPC to approach the Magistrate was available. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the remedy of a complainant who alleges non-registration of an FIR or improper investigation is to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, who may order registration and a proper investigation and monitor it. High Courts should not be entertained as a substitute forum for such writ petitions seeking direction for registration and investigation; the ratio in Sakiri Vasu and subsequent decisions was reiterated. Section 156(3) confers on the Magistrate powers necessary to ensure proper investigation, including directing registration of an FIR and supervising the progress of the inquiry, and thus the High Court's direction for registration was unsustainable. [Paras 5, 6]The High Court's direction to register the FIR and order investigation is set aside; the complainant may approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, who can direct registration, ensure and monitor proper investigation.Locus standi of complainant to file criminal complaint - Whether the first respondent lacked locus standi to file the criminal complaint. - HELD THAT: - The contention of the appellants that the first respondent had no locus to file the complaint was not accepted by this Court. The Court did not uphold the submission that the complaint was incompetent merely because of the civil dispute between the parties or previous employment issues alleged by the appellants. [Paras 4, 5]The appellants' contention that the first respondent lacked locus standi is rejected.Effect of interim judicial stay on registration and investigation - Whether registration of an FIR and commencement of investigation in violation of an interim stay order of this Court was proper. - HELD THAT: - The Court recorded concern that despite an earlier stay of the High Court order by this Court, the police had registered an FIR. While noting the impropriety of proceeding contrary to this Court's stay, the Court clarified that its order setting aside the High Court direction would not prevent the complainant from submitting material to the police or from approaching the Magistrate; if the police upon examination are satisfied a cognizable offence is made out they would have liberty to register an FIR. The Court emphasised that it had not expressed any view on merits and observed that civil disputes should not be clothed as criminal offences, nor should mere pendency of civil proceedings be a bar to registration if a criminal offence is established. [Paras 3, 7, 8, 9]Registration of the FIR notwithstanding this Court's stay was improper; the High Court's direction is set aside, but the complainant remains free to present material to the police or to approach the Magistrate, and the Court has not expressed any opinion on merits.Final Conclusion: The appeal is partly allowed: the Madras High Court's direction to register an FIR and order investigation is set aside; the first respondent remains free to place materials before the police or to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC for appropriate orders, and no opinion is expressed on the merits of the complaint. Issues involved:1. Validity of the direction to register an FIR and conduct an investigation by the High Court.2. Locus standi of the first respondent to file a criminal complaint.3. Applicability of Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in directing registration of an FIR.Issue 1: Validity of the direction to register an FIR and conduct an investigation by the High Court:The Supreme Court examined the impugned order passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court directing the Inspector of Police to register an FIR based on a complaint. Despite a stay order, an FIR was registered against the appellants and others. The Court noted that the High Court's direction for registration of an FIR with an investigation was in conflict with the principles outlined in the Sakiri Vasu case. The Court emphasized the procedure under Section 156(3) CrPC, which allows an aggrieved person to approach the Magistrate for directing the registration of an FIR and ensuring a proper investigation. The Court set aside the High Court's direction, emphasizing that a civil dispute should not be transformed into a criminal offense.Issue 2: Locus standi of the first respondent to file a criminal complaint:The appellants argued that the first respondent lacked the standing to file a criminal complaint and alleged that the complaint was driven by vengeance due to a pending civil dispute. The Court did not accept the contention regarding locus standi but acknowledged the possibility of the complaint being filed with malicious intent. However, the Court's focus was on the procedural correctness of directing the registration of an FIR by the High Court.Issue 3: Applicability of Section 156(3) of the CrPC in directing registration of an FIR:The Court extensively discussed the provisions of Section 156(3) of the CrPC, emphasizing the power of the Magistrate to order investigation, including directing the registration of an FIR and ensuring a proper investigation. Citing previous judgments, the Court reiterated that the Magistrate plays a crucial role in overseeing the investigation process and can intervene if the police fail to conduct a proper investigation. The Court highlighted that the power under Section 156(3) is broad and includes incidental powers necessary for ensuring a thorough investigation.In conclusion, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's direction for FIR registration and investigation while emphasizing the importance of following the prescribed procedures under the CrPC. The Court clarified that the decision did not express any opinion on the merits of the complaint but underscored the distinction between civil disputes and criminal offenses.