Section 156(3) CrPC requires affidavit, prior remedies, and reasoned application of mind; mechanical referral and summons cannot survive.

A Magistrate's direction under Section 156(3) CrPC is invalid when the complaint is not supported by affidavit and does not show prior recourse to Sections 154(1) and 154(3); the power must be exercised with application of mind, not mechanically. On that basis, the referral for FIR registration was set aside. The connected order taking cognizance and issuing summons was also unsustainable because it was cryptic, non-speaking, and derived from the defective referral. The matter was restored to proceed as an ordinary complaint case under Chapter XV CrPC, while the impugned referral and consequential proceedings were annulled.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Magistrate could direct registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on a complaint that was not supported by affidavit and without prior compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) Whether the consequential order of cognizance and issuance of summons, passed without reasons, was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the Magistrate could direct registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on a complaint that was not supported by affidavit and without prior compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The complaint was not supported by affidavit. The endorsement for registration of an FIR consisted only of a bare reference to Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The statutory requirements governing invocation of Section 156(3) were not followed, and the power was exercised mechanically without application of mind. The complaint also did not show compliance with the prior remedies under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The direction under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was unsustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the consequential order of cognizance and issuance of summons, passed without reasons, was sustainable.

Analysis: The order taking cognizance and issuing summons was found to be cryptic and non-speaking. Since those consequential acts flowed from the defective referral order and were themselves unsupported by reasons, they could not stand. The complaint case was however left to proceed under the ordinary complaint procedure in Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The order of cognizance, the issuance of summons and the consequential chargesheet were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The complaint was restored to proceed as a complaint case under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, while the impugned referral, cognizance and consequential proceedings were annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: A direction under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires an affidavit, prior compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3), and application of mind; a mechanical or non-speaking exercise of that power is invalid, and consequential proceedings founded on it cannot survive.

---